compiled by

YaReally Archive


Two Guitars

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 25th, 2016 at 7:48 am
Original Link

In the PUA community we don’t really care much about the nuances between like BPD and ClusterB and general crazy-bitch behavior lol It’s just like everything falls under that umbrella of ClusterB and we want the guy to get the fuck out ASAP.

’cause what a lot of guys like Softek will do is they’ll use the nuances to stay in it. “Well, you guys said she’s BPD but I don’t think she’s ACTUALLY that…I mean sure she’s threatening suicide but she doesn’t fit this ENTIRE list of BPD traits and she baked me a muffin that one time, so now that I’ve decided she’s probably not actually “BPD”, I can dismiss all of your advice for escaping a BPD and figure out how to make this work.”

That’s why Softek keeps comparing his girl to his buddy’s even WORSE girl, and to his OWN behavior, to minimize how fucked up what she’s doing is and make excuses for it etc etc

End of the day we try to get guys to learn to have personal boundaries and enforce them, so they can determine “these are the behaviors I accept from people in my life and these are the behaviors I don’t accept”, and then if a girl (or guy) crosses that line, whether it’s because she’s BPD or ClusterB or HPD or bi-polar or on her period or just ungrateful/entitled or a bitch or in a bad mood or WHATEVER, it doesn’t matter, they’re handled the same way: Soft Next/Freezeout as punishment to enforce his personal boundaries, and if they continue to do it then they end up getting a Hard Next territory and the guy moves on.

My boundaries are different from a buddy’s boundaries, but we learned where our boundaries are from having a bunch of girls in our lives over the years. Softek has no real reference experience because he has limited experience with having women in his life so his brain is like “who knows maybe this IS as good as it gets?” instead of going “no, I’ve had 10 girls that NEVER acted like this, this chick is getting Next’ed”

The irony of course is that the same way Boyfriend Destroyers work (when you insult the girl’s boyfriend, she’ll defend him and when you compliment the girl’s boyfriend, she’ll bring up his flaws), this article and the comments and warnings etc will probably end up just making Softek instinctively want to defend his girl and view us as not understanding and that she’s not THAT bad it’s “just when she drinks” and he’ll probably use the phrase “I only tell you guys about the BAD stuff so you don’t hear about the good times too” etc etc (all standard by the books stuff), and end up focusing on her good points in trying to defend her, which ends up making him stay.

The surreal part is he can just walk away at any point with no real repercussions. Like Louis CK says at 1:23:

But the longer he’s in, the more invested he’ll be, and the harder it’ll be to leave. And when he’s up with the baby wondering why she hasn’t come home from her “totally platonic male friend I promise”s apartment at 2am, he’ll watch that Louis clip and think “…ya, I should’ve bailed when I could.”

The key thing to remember is that she doesn’t need him to want to stay FOREVER…all she needs to do is keep him hooked long enough for her to get “accidentally” pregnant. Then the legal system and society will make sure he stays and provides, whether he wants to or not. That is her goal as a 31+yo woman. To get accidentally pregnant, lock him down, and then go fuck other guys behind his back because he can’t leave and THIS was her behavior when he COULD leave, and he’s been teaching her that she can act shitty and he won’t leave when he has NOTHING to lose so she’ll know he DEFINITELY won’t leave when he HAS something to lose.

I really hope Softek doesn’t end up being a warning story ’cause he’s one of the most analytical self-aware dudes I’ve seen and a brain like that has unbelievable potential with regards to mastering pickup and getting the kinds of relationships he wants with the kinds of girls he dreams of. Dude would advance FAST if he was single and actually hitting the field.


YaReally
on May 25th, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Original Link

I don’t want to interrupt all this important arguing/flirting with Emily with some dumb ol’ PUA shit but… πŸ˜›

@Culum Struan
“You need to be spot on sexualizing and building the tension to a point where she will do it.”
“I’m mostly leaking value and losing attraction, like air from a balloon, and giving her more and more validation from the kissing? What YaReally calls “why would she want the milk if the cow is free” (or the other way round? THink I messed up that analogy lol).”

Skip to 4:27 (the first 4 min Tyler and Julien are in state so everything they say is pretty incoherent and they’re just making sound effects and faces that seem genius to them in the moment lol they make good points about being able to hold tension and absorb social pressure despite the reactions of everyone around you (good subcomms) etc):

Pay attention to how he’s using lasers, cutting the space, slowing down his voice, dipping into bedroom tonality toward the end, holding the tension without conclusion like when he goes in to kiss over and over ALLLLMOST doing it but doesn’t quite actually do it even when their mouths are open and touching…by NOT completing the kiss the tension and frustration and tingles and desire FOR conclusion build up for her (like when you watch a series of a TV show and the main characters flirt and keep almost getting together till the end of the season when you’re like “JUST DO IT ALREADY AGGHHH!!!”)

And most importantly watch her body-language and overall reaction at 6:33 when she finally GETS the kiss. Full feminine tingle submission as she just melts into him and purrs like a kitten. Then skip back to 4:27 and compare her mood, she’s intrigued/curious what this little game/experiment she’s participating is but not really “turned on”, and then when she says “I’m not good at this” she’s still logically thinking, using her rational forebrain instead of her emotional hindbrain. But he takes her from rational forebrain into emotional hindbrain mode in just a couple minutes.

Note that he doesn’t SAY anything significant, just tells her to look in his eyes and tell him what she feels and he demonstrates good subcomms (being comfortable holding eye-contact, being comfortable cutting space, letting the tension ride, dominance with the hair grab, etc). This chick has no idea what his name is, how expensive his shoes are, if he has a 6-pack, what his job is, what he drives, how old he is, how many gray hairs he has, what he’s saying, etc He forces them to communicate on the subcomm/hindbrain level.

This is an example of why I say we purposely TRIGGER sexual arousal, like whatever part of her ovulation cycle she’s in doesn’t really matter, we just do the things that we know trigger arousal. If this girl was in some other stage in her cycle she’s still going to have the same arousal triggered.

As they walk off together, this girl is going to view herself as the lucky one getting him, she’s not going to flake or give him LMR etc, because he’s made her EARN him.


YaReally
on May 25th, 2016 at 6:54 pm
Original Link

@redlight
“Study 2 participants read a good or poor story supposedly written by a potential partner. Results suggested that only women’s attractiveness assessments of men as a long-term date increased for good storytellers”

Bet they would shit bricks at the results if those stories were purposely written with a bunch of DHVs laced in them.

And then I bet they would shit even more bricks if the guy read the cat and the hat or says random words or simply says the alphabet but gives the girl deep laser eye-contact while slowly cutting the space between their faces as he lowers and slows his voice etc

Skip to 20:00 in this vid (@Culum pay attention too) for the Alphabet Exercise and watch the difference when he gets to the letter “i” just by cutting space, using eye-contact, different tonality, etc…where the guy gets uncomfortable and the room laughs to relieve the tension, that’s where a girl feels tingles:

Maybe 50 years from now they’ll finally get to those experiments and catch up to tell us what we already know lol Right now, like I say, these scientists don’t even know WHAT to test for. It’s like sitting by a furnace holding a flamethrower and roasting marshmallows over an open fire while watching cavemen in lab coats try to figure out how to bang two stones together properly.


YaReally
on May 25th, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Original Link

http://jezebel.com/amber-heard-files-for-divorce-from-johnny-depp-3-days-a-1778792879

Oh Johnny…no prenup. Dude.

“Heard is seeking spousal support, although Depp has asked the judge to reject this claim through his lawyer”

The wonderful ladies in the comment section are cackling with glee. Someone tell me again about how nurturing and caring they are and how I’m supposed to quit this girl-chasing and settle down expecting one to take care of me in my old age? lol

Lookin forward to Popp’s breakdown to join the graveyard:


YaReally
on May 25th, 2016 at 10:10 pm
Original Link

@SJF
“Nice sub-comms I call non sequitur on that. What are you trying to communicate. Wait don’t answer. I already know. ”

jesus christ dude don’t tell me you think I’m making some kind of personal attack AGAIN. I have no idea what you’re talking about and my posts aren’t aimed toward you at all.


Two Guitars

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 26th, 2016 at 10:38 am
Original Link

@Softek
“This.”

Like I say, the reason I can call out exactly what’s happening and predict where it goes is because we see your situation ALL THE TIME. It’s super unique and special to YOU but to us it’s like “ah shit, another one, here we go” lol

“It’s funny because it’s the same pattern with the physical/emotional/sexual abuse I went through. I actually DENIED any abuse when I was in the mental hospital because I didn’t want to paint those people as ‘bad’ or cause trouble for them, or feel like I was slandering them.”

It’s not that you’re weak or retarded or anything, this is pretty natural/common instinct.

“It’s funny because I was running the boyfriend destroyer routine on a 20 y/o a little over a year ago. And it worked. And I didn’t even know I was doing it. It just felt intuitive to be like “Oh he seems like a nice guy,” and then leave it at that. Next thing I know she’s sending me all this BS about him, like how ugly he was as a baby, and how he claims his dick is really big but she thinks it’s probably not as big as he says, that he’s insecure, lol….and then telling me how wet she was, what position she fantasized about being fucked in, etc.”

lol exactly what the BFDs are supposed to do. Most guys will insult the boyfriend, especially the Nice Guy chodes, and not get how the girl can defend them, the same way guys here are frustrated that you don’t just walk away from your shitty relationship. And even my throwing the word “shitty” in there probably makes you twinge with like “but she brought me a cupcake today, it’s not “SHITTY”, it’s just not PERFECT, but is ANY relationship perfect??” and sends you down that defensive spiral.

“I’m still processing that shit. Even the current GF’s ex, who for all I know is suicidal. He doesn’t exist to her anymore, and that kind of threw me off. Big time. To just know how cold women are capable of being.”

Like you said: you’re sitting here thinking being MORE LIKE HIM is going to make things better lol That’s why every time I reply to you I tell you “tell us again how you two met” and “tell us again about the suicide threats” etc because I don’t want you to forget that shit and brush it under the carpet. You couldn’t walk away from your family’s abuse, you weren’t choosing to stay in that shit when you were a kid, but you CAN walk away from this chick’s mental/emotional abuse. You just aren’t because all you really know IS abuse…it would be a weird relationship if there WASN’T all this fucked up shit in it. If you had a normal healthy relationship you’d probably be waiting for the other shoe to drop…every time she flips out it probably makes your brain go “ahhh, this might be fucked up, but I can TRUST it because relationships and “love” are SUPPOSED to be fucked up”.

Which is why I say why WOULD you leave this relationship? You aren’t with other girls so you haven’t had any real good sane cool chicks in your life to really compare her to. I didn’t even REALIZE I wanted pLTRs or harems until I HAD them and was like “wow I’m WAY more comfortable and happy day to day with THIS arrangement than I was when I was in a monogamous LTR wow!!” And some girls suck, but because I’ve met cool girls I can keep those shitty girls at arm’s length.

But without hitting the field and experiencing other girls, your brain will never know it could be better, and it sure as shit won’t listen to us ’cause YOUR situation is SPECIAL. πŸ˜‰

In real life I would probably have you out of that relationship by now. I would have just complimented the fuck out of her and told you she seemed perfect and amazing and told you you could never do better than her and you should just marry her etc ’cause she’s the best you can get, which would trigger your brain to go “well, she’s not PERFECT, lemme tell you about the bad times, and what do you mean the BEST I can get, there’s this other girl who bla bla and I bet I could bla bla” and you’d eventually just see her flaws and bail on your own.

But that doesn’t work in a forum like this where everyone else will tell you she’s shitty and trigger that defensiveness, so I’m just going along with saying she’s shitty ’cause you are going to serve as a warning for future guys who read your story BEFORE they meet that girl that has them wound up this way and hopefully they can avoid ending up in your position by having read what happens to you.😦

“Whether it’s actual BPD or not, the main issue is me falling into her frame. Falling into a woman’s frame might be more dangerous with BPD, but even without BPD, it’s still dangerous. In the sense that it’s doomed to failure. In that sense, it doesn’t really matter if a girl is BPD or not. ”

This. This is why I said we don’t really care WHY the girl is acting out, whether it’s BPD or just her period or bad manners or entitlement or whatever, the way to handle it is the same: take away your attention as punishment and if they keep doing it take it away permanently. Regardless of whether she insults you in front of your friends or hassles you about porn or for looking at other girls or is rude to your waitress or talks shit about your friends or WHATEVER, doesn’t matter, the way to handle it is the same. And over time when you develop a strong frame, a lot of stuff will just bounce off it.

The reason you’re in a no-win situation is that 1) she knows you have no frame, you DID when you met but she knows that’s long gone because you’re still with her despite all her bullshit, and 2) you can’t develop your frame around her, it’s too late and she will smash it if you try because she’s 10 moves ahead of you on the chess board while you’re still looking at the instruction manual, it’s like trying to catch a heavy object near to the ground where it has tons of momentum instead of up high, you’re just gonna crush your fingers.

In the PUA community we try to advise guys not to get into a relationship for their first couple years and definitely to avoid them for like 6 months after a bootcamp etc, but any guy who’s been thirsty his whole life and is given a bottle of even remotely clean water, is gonna chug that shit. We just try to help him develop a strong frame (hint: by hitting the field) so that when he gets to that point he has SOME KIND of frame/willpower from the hundreds of interactions he’s had with women, to hold his frame in that first LTR.

Most guys end up satying in their first LTR way too long and almost inevitably when they come out of it and hit the field again and meet better women they go “man, I wish I had bailed on that LTR sooner wtf was I thinking” lol The worst is staying in it so long that you start to feel too old to go out and sarge and jump back into the game and then you end up REALLY trapped.

It’s not that you’re shitty or a loser or anything, you just don’t have a strong frame around women developed because you haven’t been around a lot of women developing one. You aren’t a shitty fucked up loser for not being able to beat Michael Jordan at basketball if you’ve only played a couple backyard games in your life lol But you’re not going to beat Jordan ’cause he gains EVERYTHING for beating you (she gets to keep you as a Provider chode to pay for her kids when she gets you to get her preggers and she can go fuck other guys) so he’s not going to hold back or give you a chance to even take a shot. You gotta peace out on Jordan’s game and go play at the local courts against randoms till you’ve got the skills to handle yourself the next time you run into a Jordan (and you WILL run into more Jordans since EVERY girl is gonna test your frame, BPD or not).


Two Guitars

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 26th, 2016 at 6:43 pm
Original Link


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 9:44 am
Original Link

@Trent Lane
“So I’d come to the opinion that the pLTR-modell of @YaReally would come as close to a heterosexual mans ideal situation mating-wise as possible: Say one primary LTR with whom you bond emotionally, share intimacy (and possibly children) with whom you agree that it is okay if you both have sexual experiences with other people but who consequently chooses to be mongamous with you out of her own free will (in red pill speak: out of her hypergamous impulses, because she comes to the conclusion you are her best option mating-wise). You on the other hand would be okay with her having sex with other men and have secondaries yourself (aka regular FB’s who you meet once a week) and maybe casual ONS on your nights out sarging. All this is lived out with strict rules (condoms everywhere of course, except with your Primary if you both choose to not use them, Primary always comes first, absolut honesty to all people involved, no lying or „cheating“.) ”

Bolded the important part that distinguishes pLTR from oLTR. The trick in the pLTR is that because of Hypergamy (we want variety, she wants the top dog), she naturally CHOOSES to only be with you (and everything else about the pLTR helps fuel your attractive qualities like preselection, dread, etc because you’re able to guilt-free interact with other women still).

Here’s my full breakdown of monogamy and pLTRs for anyone who’s missed it:

http://yareallyarchive.com/2015/8/#comment-rationalmale-114069

Personally I feel there are very few men who wouldn’t choose this option if they knew how to pull it off (which is why I talk about it and am exploring the topic, to provide men an alternate relationship solution since, the way things are going as the 80/20 divide becomes 99/1, it looks like the whole harem thing will be making a comeback and the traditional relationship ideal men have been given (monogamy) is becoming a sucker’s bet in 2016).

The only real pushback I get on it is that it takes “amazing game” (which it wouldn’t if men were being taught pickup early on, which is the ideal future) and “but what if it goes wrong”…ANY type of relationship can go WRONG, you can always tone things down and transition into monogamy if shit gets hard to control (girls bringing you drama etc) and if she fucks some dude on her friend’s bachelorette party in Cuba to test your frame or whatever she would have fucked him in your monogamous relationship anyway at least in a pLTR where you keep all the things that make you attractive she’ll be WORRIED when she fucks him that she might risk losing you lol)

The more important question is to me is: what if it DOESN’T go wrong? What if it DOES work? The guys who’ve pulled it off (including myself for a few years) seem pretty happy with life compared to a lot of the monogamous dudes I’ve met (I can think of maybe 2 relationships I know in total, where both people are happily satisfied in them and haven’t either cheated or had the MASSIVE urges to cheat and had to frustratingly battle with themselves and deal with massive guilt to NOT cheat).


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 11:53 am
Original Link

@Softek
“…and yet, with people in my life that the same role is being played out with, I’ll keep playing along, and reacting to them. Even though the basis for that reaction is experiences I had with my parents that I am no longer “bothered” by (consciously).”

If you accepted that what your GF is doing is wrong, then you would be forced to accept that what your family did was wrong too. By staying with your GF and normalizing it and convincing yourself it’s not that bad, your parents aren’t that bad and then you don’t have to admit to yourself that they were legitimately abusive and don’t have to feel guilt/shame about viewing them that way and maybe even hating them for it or accepting that other people’s judgement of “they were shitty people” could be right.

So how could you view what your GF is doing is wrong and not give her a million outs and excuses, when there’s all that baggage attached to it?


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 11:57 am
Original Link

@Softek
“I think my biggest problem isn’t that these things happened, but that I haven’t fully accepted that they were WRONG.”

If you can make it work with her and stay through it and find some way to be happy in that relationship, then your parents were never abusive, instead of that’s just “how love works” and you can finally vindicate your reluctance to accept that they were abusive because hey man, that’s just how love works, maybe not for YOU guys but for ME that’s how it works, I’m a special snowflake and my relationships are just different.

The second you view your girl as abusive and walk away is the second you (mentally) admit your family was abusive.

Just make it work with her, just cram that square peg in the round hole and get things to work out with her and you can tell yourself your parents were loving and kind and it was all just an exaggeration in your childhood mind and you can convince yourself you had a normal childhood and feel normal like everyone else.


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Original Link

@Softek
And, if you accept that your parents WERE abusive, what the fuck OTHER doors does that open? How can you trust ANYONE at that point? How can you even trust your own judgement? What the fuck sense does the world even make that parents could do that to their kids? How the fuck are you supposed to be a father someday, or just be in a normal relationship? What does it say about you and your judgement and your own sense of self-preservation that people could do this stuff to you and you just take it and rationalize it? etc etc

It’s a big can of worms to start opening especially when life has been enough of a struggle as it IS for you with suicidal thoughts and everything, delving into THAT mess is a lot to take on.

…but if you can just make it work with this girl because she brought you a cupcake, you can sweep it all back under the rug and plug back into the Matrix to eat your steak that you know isn’t really steak.


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 3:41 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
“Far harder for me than nightclub opens (although when I look at the wingmen forums and whatsapp groups for Game in big cities etc, I see a lot MORE newbies are doing daygame – I’m not sure why that is)”

Probably cuz none of them are reading Mystery Method so they don’t have the training to compete in a nightclub running group sets and disarming hardcore bitch-shields and competing with AMOGs and club distractions etc lol

@Scray @Blaximus @SFJ @scribblerg @etc
I don’t wanna wade into this minefield after the looks debate lol but just to jump in to clarify on Scray’s behalf (and I might be wrong, but this is how it looks to me reading this):

I think Scray is just saying like, sure, self-discipline is important, but why not build it in other ways? The whole last thread about developing subcomms was all about “you can hit the gym and develop them or run a business or be a Navy SEAL so why hit the field and do pickup?” So now if we flip the script why not develop self-discipline by joining the SEALs or running a business or joining the gym? Why did everyone choose to use sex with a variety of women, a natural healthy biological urge, as the mound to plant their self-discipline flag in?

Every time anyone says “I don’t want to do that” they lace it with negative analogies where there’s a massive cost to it. Like it’s the equivalent of emptying your bank account, or of skydiving out of a plane, or it’s too much drama, or the girls can’t compare to your wife, or it’s like shooting up a school (really?? that’s an equivalent?? Do you have a biological urge to shoot up a school?? lol) or of something dangerous with HUGE negative costs and damages to themselves and everyone around them to it…which would technically mean guys choosing not to do it aren’t choosing that because they don’t WANT to, but because they don’t see a way to make it work without negative consequences.

So my read on what Scray is asking is: what if there WERE no negative conseqeunces to it? If there were no negative conseqeunces to it, would you enjoy having variety in your sex life? Say you had a dozen women of the quality of your wife in personality and everything like they didn’t fight with you they were loyal to you they didn’t demand too much of your time or make her feel insecure etc but with a different look and different pussies, and they all knew how to get you off and there was no negative downside to fucking them ’cause your wife was cool with it and even encouraged you, would you do it?

Because if men wanting variety is a natural urge we all admit to, then logically the reason guys choose not to have more variety is because they fear losing something or negative consequences (ie – it’s not worth the (insert negative consequence)) or don’t see a way to make it work without negative consequences…and what if we were able to come up with a way to minimize/neutralize the negative consequences and/or create POSITIVE consequences from the arrangement?

So when he asks why choose monogamy, if there are alternatives that satisfy the need for variety without the negative conseqeunces, and develop self-discipline through other means like not eating donuts and hitting the gym and paying all your bills on time etc? It sounds like his theory is that guys picked monogamy because they view non-monogamy as having too many consequences (just like eating donuts), so they’re building self-discipline that way…but what if, with a better understanding of nutrition, we learned that donuts are healthy for you (aka we learned how to tame women into harems)…why would anyone choose to not eat donuts? That would no longer really be self-discipline, it would be denying yourself something beneficial.

@all
I don’t know anything about what you’re talking about but to throw discussion fodder into the mix what are your thoughts on how robots are going to affect all this?:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4l9b99/iphone_manufacturer_foxconn_is_replacing_60000/

From one of those posts: “Monday Pizza Hut hired a robot named Pepper. Tuesday McDonald’s CEO said it would be cheaper to buy $35,000 robots then the pay $15 an hour to humans. Wednesday Addidas moved it’s human run plant in China to a robot run plant in Germany and today Apple just replaced 60,000 iphone assembly employees with robots. We’re fucked.”


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Original Link

And here we go:

“Amber Heard and Johnny Depp have moved from being entertainingly rude to one another in PR statements, to reported accusations of domestic violence. This is a bad, sad trajectory.

TMZ says that Heard showed up in court with a bruise on her face that she claims is a result of Depp’s abuse:

Heard showed up with her lawyer, Samantha Spector, armed with photos showing various bruises … she claims Depp inflicted during various times during their marriage.

It’s interesting … she’s asking for a temporary restraining order claiming there’s an immediate threat of harm, but Depp has been out of town since Wednesday promoting his new movie. Depp’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, appeared on his behalf.

If the court appearance was today, Wednesday is not too long ago for someone to have a bruise showing, TMZ. The ex-couple’s divorce case has only been on for a week, and it’s already starting to explode Johnny Depp’s generally favorable public image as it gets increasingly ugly. ”

It’s cool tho, the comment section detectives have already determined his guilt so we can skip the whole trial thing:

“I am inclined to believe Amber simply because drunk people have a tendency to turn to their hands when their words fail them, even when they are people who, sober, would never do such a thing.”

“She’s probably fully aware that she’s not going to get much money, yet she went ahead with the divorce petition anyway. That tells me that there were much, much deeper issues than trying to get him for his money. She wanted out, fast.”

Just lock the monster up already!!! Why are you endangering women by letting him run loose?!?! After we lock him up we can focus on picking out the next successful man’s legacy we can drag through the mud.


YaReally
on May 27th, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Original Link

@scray @SJF
“i’m not questioning any of that. see, when i’m just trying to abstract some sort of principle from a specific set of conduct (why are you monogamous) and you take it as this indictment of your entire fucking world….….it just makes me think ‘this is just some strongly conditioned shit i’ve run into.’”

lol this. He’s just examining your beliefs and asking questions to understand how you guys ended up where you are, not attacking your life and accomplishments or saying you’re trying to brainwash anyone else into anything.

Like take Andy, he’s on a similar path as you guys but Andy is CLEARLY unsatisfied with his decision. So what is it that Andy is missing that you guys all high-five eachother over? Is it something he’s going to discover down the road? Did he miss the boat on some secret you guys learned that he didn’t?

We don’t understand the “exercise self-discipline for the sake of self-discipline” thing when it comes to something that we don’t really view as having a negative consequences. It seems like needless self-denial/suffering and the only real purpose behind it SEEMS to be a circular argument that it’s just “good to do” for the sake of doing it, which is curious to us because usually those kinds of “it’s good because it’s GOOD” arguments come from social conditioning.

It’s not an attack, just a “curious to see where this view stems from if we follow the threads” thing to understand the differences between guys who are successfully enjoying monogamy and guys who are miserable in it.

Friday night everyone, get out there if you’re single! Practice lasers and cutting space in your interactions, try to spark sexual tension with them.


YaReally
on May 29th, 2016 at 11:00 am
Original Link

@hank holiday
Your general socializing is off the charts compared to a lot of newbies who would have avoided most of those interactions you jumped into. You will be a beast the day you finally get yourself into a city full of girls you WANT to fuck. You’re actually learning a bunch of other skills like being able to enjoy general socializing with normal people (VS just interacting with girls you want to fuck) that you’ll find will actually help you out down the road in a lot of ways besides drawing the attention of girls you want.

Lots of advice on numbers here:

Personally I like Julien’s stuff on numbers in general. Main general rules:

1) push for the meetup ASAP, while she still remembers you’re awesome before she gets her weekly swarm of orbiters/Tinder chodes showering her with attention…this isn’t 2005 when social media didn’t exist and texting was rare and people made plans for dates etc a week or two in advance. Jump on that shit ASAP and try to get her to meet up the next day or within a few days.

2) always be pushing towards an actual meetup, don’t just go sideways shooting the shit about puppydogs and icecream, always be pushing forward toward a meetup

3) have a plan for your Day2, don’t ask “hey so are you free tonight maybe? We could go for a drink or something? Lemme know what works for you!”, give orders/commands like “Drinks at Bar-Name, 7pm. Wear a skirt” and whatever she has a problem with or objections she has, she can bring them up for you to disarm and work around or even just as soon as she puts up any kind of “I can’t tonight I have choir practice” shit just immediately call her and use your voice/charm over the phone to either stomp her plans out or solidify another night. Even if she can’t make it out, you’ve at least shown some decisive man to woman intent.

@all
The lye scene in Fight Club is mainly about forcing the Narrator into the present moment. Most of Fight Club is about that. That’s why they stress the “this is your life and it’s ending one minute at a time”, why he holds a gun to the convenience store guy’s head instead of talking to him rationally, that’s what Marla and the Narrator are talking about when they say how people never really listen they just wait for their turn to speak (people aren’t being in the present moment actually IN the conversation, they’re off thinking about other shit and inside their heads etc), why he flips the car in the road after asking the passengers what they’d regret not doing with their life, etc

That’s why he calls the lye burn the greatest moment of his life “and you’re off somewhere missing it” and says don’t deal with it the way those “dead people” do (everyone who doesn’t live in the present, which is most of society), he’s telling him to stay in the present moment and embrace the experience, good or bad, and accept the pain and quit hiding away behind his ego etc When he says “what you’re experiencing is premature enlightenment” it’s cause the Narrator is just saying he gets it to try to make the pain stop but doesn’t REALLY fully accept it. Picking fights and purposely losing (and hitting rock bottom) is a way of destroying the ego which forces you to be in the present moment and accept that pain/loss/humility/reality.

http://theliberatedlotus.com/insight-from-fight-club/

A lot of stuff we do infield is about getting into the present moment instead of being stuck inside your head (which is what most dudes are in the bar, cycling through things to say trying to think what’s good enough to impress the girl, picturing all the worst-case scenarios, worrying about trivial shit like are they dressed well enough to approach what’s their relative value to the girl by society’s standards who’s that guy he’s probably her boyfriend bla bla bla). Pain is a fast way to shut down the rest of the bullshit in your head and feel present to the moment (probably part of the pleasure cutters like Softek get from cutting).

There are other ways to get people into the present moment, but they take a lot of work and self-development and practice…pain/fear is just a really easy/fast way to do it. No one is thinking about the bills they have to pay or worrying about their 6-pack when a roaring tiger is dropped in front of them lol

@Softek
I just go down on girls and get them to the edge of an orgasm before sticking my P in them lol Why shove it in them ice cold and have to do all that building up to the edge of an orgasm through sheer thrusting? I also do a shitload of teasing before actually fully sliding in which is the same concept as Julien not giving that girl the kiss, when she gets it she appreciates it more because he teased her and made her crave it and get frustrated at not getting it etc.

@SJF
“How do I score in your estimation, Blaximus? See? They are trick questions.”

You’re gettin weirdly paranoid dude. Not everyone is attacking you or out to get you man. Blax is just a curious dude.


YaReally
on May 29th, 2016 at 11:55 am
Original Link

@Strongtek @SJF @scrib
“(in reality time is irrelevant and the only point is that you come when you want to….if you’re coming when you don’t want to, whether that’s in 1 second or 1 hour, it doesn’t matter – IMO it’s about control and making the choice to do it, not being at the complete mercy of your bodily sensations and feeling like you have no control at all)”

Man, I didn’t know guys were so hardcore about this stuff lol Is this what goes through your guys’ heads during sex?? I just let whatever happens happen and enjoy it. If I planned to fuck her but she’s giving me good head and I get close I might just go “eh, fuck it” and let it happen cause hey, it feels good. If I drank too much (or am stressed) and can’t get it up I just lol and blame booze or say I fapped earlier and go down on her or make her squirt and give it another go later. If I blow early I just lol and tell her it’s ’cause she turns me on so much. If for whatever reason I can’t get her off, oh well, we fool around and have some fun and try again next time or have a conversation about it and narrow down what she needs to be able to let go and cum.

To me the bedroom is the one place where you SHOULD be able to let go and “whatever happens, happens” with no judgement of eachother or yourselves. But maybe that comes with the mindset of knowing I’m going to have sex for the rest of my life (VS when I was new to it and didn’t know if I’d get it again lol) and with a variety of partners so I don’t really stress it. One girl and I might hook up once, and it’s the worst sex ever, and it’s just a funny story for me to tell my buddies…another girl and I might hook up for a year and have a mix of amazing sex and terrible sex…another girl and I might be like fireworks on the fourth of july every time we fuck and have nothing but consistently mindblowing sex. Who knows, who cares, it’s all fun lol

I got a buddy who’s ex-LTR of a bunch of years liked getting railed for like 30 min straight P in V thrusting, and now he’s convinced that any girl he hooks up with is going to want that and be disappointed if she doesn’t get it. He doesn’t know how to make them squirt or how to really do a variety of sexual things, he’s kind of got one way of fucking that he likes and that his ex-LTR was also into and he hasn’t had much variety so he has NO IDEA that girls love all kinds of sex and each girl is into some different shit and has different kinks and that you can blow their minds with squirting and foreplay etc instead of just thrusting away forever. But he’s legitimately worried about hooking up with other girls because he’s a little out of shape now and he’s worried he can’t thrust for half an hour like he’s “supposed” to.

It’s all crazy to me lol Sex is about letting go and having orgasms and fun and tapping into the girl’s fantasies and shit.

“Like they were having so much fun doing all this shit together and they weren’t even having ‘impressive’ sex. Like it was eye opening to me to see it’s not a big fucking deal and people are getting off on shit that is beyond normal and vanilla.”

Ya like, sometimes the sex I have is a full evening/night of straight out fucked up hardcore kink porn, and sometimes it’s just a vanilla quickie because we’re horny. It doesn’t have to be this amazing 10/10 performance and epic production every time lol

“You don’t have to be a fucking Olympics Gold Medalist to pursue and enjoy sex and from watching Chaturbate once in a while apparently a lot of people just do it and don’t give a fuck.”

Ya, that’s like my buddy who’s got the anxiety about his half hour thrusting marathon skills. He’s in for a shock when he realizes most girls don’t really care if it’s like that and some girls don’t even like thrusting for THAT long (it hurts etc) and some girls get off better through oral than P in V etc etc…ya there ARE thrust queens that crave that “whip your dick out and shove it in NOW” P in V thrusting action, and that’s cool, but they’re nowhere near the majority that professional porn stereotypes would have you believe and worry about.

“So thanks for the heads up to check that site out, I’d never heard of it before.”

I like linking it because the girls are so plain and normal lol Those are the girls you’ll see walking around the mall or working behind the McDonald’s counter, and for all you know she’s got a mini-vibe shoved up her pussy. Hit PornHub and search for “work webcam” and “library webcam” and remember what you see the next time you’re out running errands. Any one of those girls could be doing what you see there before you run into them or after you leave lol Girls love sex and orgasms.

“I don’t know on a deep level why I come before I want to come when it does happen”

Maybe you accidentally ENJOYED the sex for a minute? πŸ˜‰

@SJF
“But sorry to bore you.”

Dude I have no idea what you’re talking about or why you think you’re boring me or why you think I hate you or why you think I don’t want you to post or why you think I think you’re antagonistic or why you think I think ANYTHING about you man. I don’t think about you at all unless I’m directly replying to you specifically. I’m not lacing my posts with secret jabs at you and your Venn diagram.


YaReally
on May 30th, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Original Link

@hank holiday
That’s the greatest Day2 plan I’ve ever read lol Well done handling that shit. You can use that for every single Day2 you ever do and have a repeatable sequence of DHVs and venue changes etc. Excellent work. Now just figure out how to seed the transition to her place. Movies/music are usually the easiest topic to seed a non-ASD triggering transition, like you talk about favorite movies/music (is there a shop in that mall that sells DVDs/music etc?) and that leads to “oh I’ve never seen that, we should watch it sometime” and being able to skirt her ASD with “we’re just going to watch this movie”. It’s trickier to go to her place, but if you don’t have anywhere to fuck then you do what you gotta do. Keep an eye for public places you could escalate to sex (no cameras etc) though, incase the vibe is on…lots of girls love the adventure/risk of public sex lol

@scray @Blaximus @SJF
“you admit up above that you have the desire to fuck multiple women and just say it’s about mastery. now you say you don’t have the desire and that nothing has faded”

lol I was gonna let it go but ya, this is what Scray is pointing out. When he says “why do you do it”, a Blax will respond “I just don’t have the desire” but when Scray says “ya, so you’ve lost the desire” a Blax will circle around and go “Oh I HAVE the desire, I just have self mastery” and then if Scray goes “so you HAVE the desire, why don’t you act on it?” a Blax goes “well I just don’t have the desire” and it just loops around and we get a bunch of condescending side-tangents comparing us to “WUT U CUTTIN ROSES FOR YA FAGGOT LOLOLOLZZZ!!!” idiots. That cognitive dissonance is part of what we find interesting.

Same with SJF, it’s like “I don’t do it because I have discipline” well, ok that means that you’re abstaining from something you WANT to do then, because if you weren’t there would be no discipline involved just like I’m not building self-discipline by not jumping off the roof or going on a murder spree, those aren’t thinks I WANT to do. But then if Scray SAYS “so you WANT to do it and are restricting yourself” the circle sweeps back to “no I’m not restricting myself, I just have discipline” which doesn’t really make sense.

And when we say “it’s because you fear the consequences”, we get a “no we don’t fear the consequences, we just don’t want to do it because it’s not worth the trouble or risking all this stuff I have (aka, CONSEQUENCES), but we don’t FEAR any CONSEQUENCES” lol

It’s funny because it’s just the wording causing that automatic pride-trigger. If we weren’t using the words “fear” and “conseqeunces” and “self-denial” and “losing it in your old age” and “knowing your limits (aka you’re not “good” enough)” which are all negative sounding words/terms that no one wants to be assosciated with, there would probably be no defensive pushback. Like if Scray was like “so you don’t do it because even though the desire might be there, you’re rock solid and resolved as a man to understand that there’s more to life and the love of a good woman is bla bla” the reactions would probably be like “ya man, you get us!!” because it comes off as giving props/compliments instead of the negative connotations of “so you’re old and have lost the desire” which causes “bro, trust me, I’m not that old, I still HAVE desire okay??”

“no one has said that. not even once. we do not understand EXERCISING self-discipline without any REASON.”

This. That was the part I was going to drop the convo at because it’s a repeat of the looks debate where it’s people saying things we aren’t saying and arguing them lol But this is what we mean…self-discipline without a reason/goal seems like just needless self-restraint/denial. If I feel like going for a walk in the sunshine and there’s no real negative consequence to it, I sound kind of silly saying I’m developing self-discipline by not going for a walk in the sunshine…VS if I don’t touch the sugary unhealthy donut, or I hit the gym when I’m tired.

That’s why I bring up why restrain yourself in relationships/sex (unless you fear losing the girl), why not build self-discipline other ways and fully enjoy your relationships/sexual desire?

“also for whatever reason you don’t think that managing multiple relationships and women will take hardcore self-discipline…..”

lol that’s another discussion entirely.

“see i’m usually fine with a natural like blax just doing his thing and going round in circles to avoid revealing or showing what seems like a weakness in approach……the problem is that the shit SJF and Blax says ends up getting repeated by a dude who needs LEGIT help, like softek.”

lol ya. I’m sitting here reading about forks in the road and how one day when we’ve finally achieved the enlightened wisdom that comes with being old, we’ll choose the right fork, and there’s all these undescribable rewards for sticking to the guitar even when you don’t want to etc etc…BUT IGNORE ALL OF THAT BRO, YOU GOT A BPD, JUST GTFO!!

I think Scray and I come from a place (and more of the next generation will) where we don’t just do stuff for the sake of doing it. I get the impression that a lot of the older generation did stuff just because “that’s the way it’s supposed to work” because there was a lot more conditioning of how a man behaves in society (blue pill conditioning).

Whereas we come from a place of knowing a lot of that was bullshit and going “no, but WHY is it supposed to work that way? Describe to me the exact pros and cons of each of these paths and inform me what the ACTUAL tangible benefits from putting my time/energy into this will get me, and I’LL decide if it’s worth my time/energy.” But when we ask those questions, the people who’ve done it “because you’re supposed to” don’t really have a lot of answers except circular logic and shaming/condescending and contradicting which just makes us think “okay THEY don’t even know why they’re doing it” which is a big tell for social conditioning.

@scribblerg @scray
“Great explication of the difference between an alpha male and beta male without using any of those terms.”

Man, I could write a thousand pages on RDJ lol Would put my money on a chubby RDJ in a bar over an as-they-look-now Evans/Hemsworth any day. Partly because my style of humor is very similar to RDJ lol

This guy is looking too surface level though. RDJ does tons of self-depreciation and he stares people down HARDCORE giving his interest when he’s engaged with them…RDJ is basically either not paying attention to you at all (like the interview clip this guy showed) or zero’ed in on you like you’re the only thing that exists in the world besides him.

The whole interview with them is actually a good watch:

Watch how much Evans reacts to Downey. Downey can get Evans to stammer and get flustered with just looking at him and letting silence hang. Evans comes off extremely reactive to Downey. And Downey does a few things that help make Evans look more and more supplicative/lame:

1) He knows exactly when to switch from overly-cocky to self-depreciation but notice that he does it when he KNOWS that Evans is going to big him up. Like on something that he knows Evans legitimately will compliment him for, he’ll self-depreciate so that Evan, who’s objectively better looking dude, is LITERALLY grabbing at the mic and trying to cover up Downey’s mouth to GUSH over Downey and TELL everyone how AMAZING Downey is…because of the timing of his self-depreciation, he’s literally got the guy who by society’s standards would be considered the highest value guy in the room GUSHING over how amazing he is, which just makes him look higher value in comparison.

2) For the reverse, when Downey gives a compliment it’s usually sincere and toned down, he won’t gush over other people like this, but he’ll just state flat out objectively “this guy is the best I’ve ever worked with” and shrug like it’s just a fact, no big deal.

3) But the other big thing he does is when Evans gushes over him, Downey doesn’t just stare wide-eyed going “gawsh, my hero is complimenting me!!!:) :)” like people do when RDJ compliments them (which makes his value look higher)…he’ll actually make fun of how cheesy Evans is being giving him props with a comment like “I almost just fell off the (something), I was so overcome with your good will”, which is a COMPLIMENT, but also kind of tooling him and making him seem lame/supplicative.

4) Notice at the start he takes CREDIT for “corrupting” Evans and makes himself the authority (watching Evans grow up into more of an asshole (aka “cool”)) that gives Evans his “approval”. So even when Evans DOES manage to pull off an RDJ move and be cool, RDJ not only pro-actively takes credit for it, but because Evans is a nice guy, he plays INTO RDJ deserving the credit for his growing up, which again just gives RDJ more value…he’s literally holding a blinking neon sign saying “you think I’m high value, look at THIS guy!! I can’t stop gushing about him!!”

5) When something is expected of RDJ, he does the opposite. Like stealing the “A”, and in this interview you can see him register “Evans is going to compliment me, so I’ll self-depreciate”, and a lot of his overly cocky “ya, I’m the best” stuff comes when he’s on his own (accepting that award) or at the end of a bunch of self-depreciation when he finally “gives in” and goes “okay, ya, it was all me, I’m the best” which makes everyone love him and not view him as cocky because he avoided it at first (knowing other people were going to give him props FOR him).

This is all stuff I do infield around other dudes, especially good looking guys. Most guys are conditioned to be “nice” so they end up acting like Evans here and you can manipulate them like this. RDJ probably does it naturally, but this is all stuff you can learn. It’s just social calibration and knowing when to push and when to pull.

Watch when RDJ makes eye contact and when he pulls it away:

Whenever he’s stressing a point or trying to observe a reaction to work with, he locks eyes and stares people down HARD…but when he’s being flippant/cheeky or the person has failed his tests etc, he loses interest immediately and looks around. Even watch at 2:20, he shifts his focus to each person but then settles on a person off-camera and once he picks them, that person has his full laser focus on them as he rambles and they smile/laugh to relieve the tension just like Jimmy Fallon in that vid scribblerg linked. Specifically watch the iris/pupils of his eyes, the black part, his entire head can move around but those stay LOCKED onto the other person’s eyes no matter what they’re doing. Just watch how each person he switches to interact with he locks his eyes on them. And the final speech in that video of course, again watch his eyes in it and where they’re locked to.

This stuff is subtle but it’s very powerful in set. Combine it all with what that video guy is talking about, where you feel like you don’t know if you have his approval (guess which works best for pickup, a girl not KNOWING if she has your approval or a girl knowing she has it, a better-looking dude not KNOWING if he has your approval or a dude knowing it), and where you feel like he might walk away if you don’t chase his attention etc, but then you chase it and say something that interests him and BOOM you’re under the microscope of his intense stare-down laser eye-contact getting flustered while he keeps a calm deadpan face and casually rambles.

“like, the cool thing is seeing them interact”

The main point of everything I’m saying is that it goes back to what I’ve always said, to paraphrase Tyler: in any interaction one person is ALWAYS reacting more to the other person…whether it’s 90/10 or 49.9/50.1, when two people interact, at any given moment one person is reacting to the other person…it can shift moment to moment but girls are picking up on that subcomm of who has higher-value. We determine who has higher value based on how other people react to them. In a photo lineup, Evans is traditionally better looking than RDJ, but have them interact with a girl or with eachother or with anyone else in the room at all, and you’ll see which guy is, moment to moment, cooler/higher-value. That’s why the “what about two guys with exactly the same game but one is Evans and one is RDJ!!?!” is a silly discussion, that doesn’t happen, when you set them down in real life, they’re reacting to their environment, their environment is reacting to them, they’re reacting to eachother, they’re reacting to the girl, etc etc and dozens of little subcomms appear that didn’t show up in their photos on Tinder.

Evans will look cool when RDJ ISN’T around, which goes back to what I said where as long as no one interferes a good looking dude will do just fine. But when you throw a monkey wrench like RDJ into it, shit goes off the rails from what society says is supposed to happen.

“the reason why this guy thinks there’s a huge difference in value between the two is because of the association between ‘asshole’ and ‘high value.’ it’s not really like that. like, dudes who are super nice and legitimately super nice from a strong place and have boundaries will do well with women too.”

Right, it’s not about nice or asshole. A lot of what Russell Brand says is massive value-giving really, he showers people in compliments and makes them feel good about themselves.

What ACTUALLY matters is how that person’s environment is reacting to them and how that person makes their environment react to them, which comes down to the subcomms. RDJ’s subcomms display massive high-value, especially around normal “nice” people.

“Dudes that are super nice like Evans are ppl that guys with a more cocky vibe especially have to be wary of.”

With these guys you can just do what RDJ did to Evans, where you compliment them FOR giving value, but in a way that makes it seem like they’re being try-hard to cheesy. You basically devalue “giving value” in that moment, which is what their entire confidence/value is based on (“giving value”) so then all their default normal behaviors start to sabotage them because they’re just digging further into the frame you’ve set to the group.

None of this comes off malicious or insulting or anything, Evans has a great time around RDJ he would never be like “OH MAN HE’S AMOGGING ME!!!”, but these little things are how RDJ manages to come off 0.0001% cooler than the people around him. And that 0.0001% counts for a LOT infield. The little 0.0001% things RDJ does stand out like neon lights to me because they’re stuff I use infield all the time ’cause I’ve hung out with a lot better looking guys lol

@Culum Struan
“33 year old HB6 from online dating first date. Solidly provider hunting.”

Yup. Frame battle from the start. She’s old and off a site where the frame is you’re going to be a Provider. Gotta get off these sites man, you’re running stairs with weights tied to your legs ’cause you don’t just have to come off as a Lover, you have to UNDO the massive image they have that you’ll be a Provider because you’re on the sites.

“Around the same time she also said “I’m mellowing towards you now..I think you realized I wasn’t a push-over and you backed off” and a bit later as I was walking her back to her car also said “You weren’t as bad as I thought you were”.”

Watch Craig Ferguson’s flirting compilations (“flirting masterclass”) on YouTube. He’s EXTREMELY calibrated and pulls back when he crosses a line and uses self-depreciation like “whoops I was being a creepy old man there” that lighten the mood and show the girl he has calibration etc. Might give you some inspiration for calibration with this more sexual stuff in general. But her commenting this is a good sign that you were properly calibrated and pulled back when you needed to.

“amazing how all my success happens with MILFy types in their 40s post divorce OR chicks in their 20s including late 20s – offhand there are very few in that 30s bracket who I’ve banged”

Ya, TAKE THE HINT and go mack some mid-20s hotties dummy lol

“(BTW, speaking of which it also occurs to me that I didn’t do enough push/pull and didn’t do much qualification either – that was the main problem with the shit test..it threw me off my “structure” too..).”

Right, that’s the purpose of it. She very adamantly set the frame of what’s acceptable and not acceptable, which throws you into a situation where you’re no longer qualifying her (and worst-case scenario you’re qualifying yourself TO her). You came in trying to be the buyer and she said “WOAH, you think YOU’RE the buyer here? Back off buddy.” and turned herself into the buyer.

Props dude, even now in a situation where it didn’t pan out you know it’s not that you suck or are a loser or whatever, you know it’s just some switch you weren’t able to flip in your game and can look at the reasons you weren’t able to flip it, rather than taking it personal. That’s a big step internally compared to how guys start out where it’s “she didn’t want to fuck me, so I guess I’m a loser” lol Now it’s an almost unemotional “hmm, what actions should I have done different to achieve my goal…”


YaReally
on May 30th, 2016 at 1:46 pm
Original Link

@Roy Hobbs
“For the past 3 weeks, I have been venturing- solo- to the college side of town more. I am now on a first-name basis with like ½ dozen bartenders and am much more comfortable in that environment. I still get the “old-guy” shit tests regularly, but they bounce off much more like nerfs than bbs.”

Good man. (see what I did there? I just used the RDJ “giving you my approval” thing from point 4 above lol) You’re taking action to CREATE a better sarging situation for yourself than the guy who sits at home crying that it’s “hard”. You’re being pro-active and developing a stronger frame and higher-value. You’re always going to get old-guy shit-tests if you’re old, that’s just gonna happen, BUT remember that 1) shit-tests are generally given by girls because she’s ATTRACTED to you (she doesn’t walk up to a homeless scrub and shit-test him, she does it when she wants to test a guy’s frame because she probably SHOULDN’T be attracted to him but can’t help feeling that she is ’cause Attraction is not a choice), and 2) every time you pass a shit-test you spike attraction, so I WELCOME shit-tests, especially age related ones.

Mystery KNEW his fuzzy hat was going to get shit-tests from girls to test his frame, but he knew that if he passed those shit-tests he would get attraction. So don’t worry about these…I PURPOSELY ask girls their age now and tell them I have over a DECADE on them and stress the word DECADE because 1) it’s hilarious to me wtf am I doing I should be chasing damaged old women my age off OKCupid according to society, and 2) they’ll end up shit-testing me about it and I can pass those shit-tests.

“The entire derailment was like her rebooting back to “nice girl”.”

Damn, that was going solid for a while there. Sounds like you hit a state-break when she started thinking about uggo’s boyfriend picking her up. She was IN a fantasy world with you, but then someone she knows who knows her boyfriend and knows uggo etc is coming to pick her up and even thinking about that triggers a bunch of “how do I explain who this guy is, oh god what will uggo have told him” etc etc

Ideal handling would be to get rid that ride home off her mind entirely. Uuuuusually when this happens it’s because the guy stops leading. Like a Julien or Tyler or Max etc would just take her hand and go “it’s fine we’ll come back in 15 minutes, text them that you’re getting food and to pick you up in 15 minutes, we’re just going to this place up the street it has the best pizza, we’re just going to get a slice of pizza and then you can go home, you can’t come home with me tonight anyway I have work in the morning” etc etc and just get her away from the venue and isolated from the “real world” where there are “real consequences” to her actions and buy yourself a little more time to work towards venue changing her to a sex location.

Here’s a vid of Julien with infield at the start where he shows his student who refuses to lead the girl, that the girl wants to be LED while her Buying Temp is up:

Usually what happened to you happens when you act like the student here, where it’s kind of letting the girl dictate where things go, like he’s waiting on the girl to decide what she wants to do instead of just steamrolling her frame like Julien does once he steps in and leads her down the street.

Same with at the end of this video (22:25):

He’s just slowly moving her further and further away from her friends, disarming everything and plowing their frames with his. The girls chase after her at the end and take her back, but he sets up a pretty solid “hook up later” conspiracy plan for them and at least grabs a solid number etc instead of letting the girl stay on the other side of the railing and letting her friends dictate everything etc. He knows he has attraction/interest so he just leads it toward where it needs to go before her forebrain can fuck things up.

If you wanted to really narrow down exactly where you went wrong, write up as much detail you can of what happened between you pitching the bounce and the end of the interaction, but save yourself some effort and watch that Julien infield first and see if it looked similar to what his student was doing (letting her have too much time to think and lead the interaction and fall back out of the fantasy bubble into the real world) ’cause that’s probably what happened (which, when it DOES happen, stems from a lack of entitlement…ie – “this girl likes me but I can’t just steamroll her frame and lead her away, she has to text her ride, I can’t just TAKE her and tell her to text them a lie, that’s crazy!!! What am I some rich movie star?? I’ll let her text her ride and talk about stuff that breaks her state”)

Also remember that her forebrain/ASD is TRYING to break her state, because if she DOESN’T, she’ll fuck you. That’s part of why girls drag eachother off to the bathroom and try to tool you in front of their friends who like you etc, because they can see their friend’s buying temperature spiking through the roof and they instinctively KNOW that if they don’t get her away from you she’s going to end up fucking you even if she has a boyfriend, so they’ll do stuff like literally physically drag her off to the bathroom as she looks back at you wide-eyed, and just get her away from you so that her buying temp can cool down, and then when you see her again she’s collected and can give you the cold shoulder etc even though it was on a few minutes ago.

That’s what happens at the end of this video, both girls temperatures spike through the roof and the blonde still has enough rational capacity to drag her friend away as her friend looks back like “nooo I love this ahhhhh!!!!!”:

She’s being dragged away so they can cool down their buying temps and gain some control back.

My point being that you can be killing it in set but when you get to the point where you go to bounce her, understand that that’s when you REALLY want to plow her frame, ’cause that’s where you’re going to run into stuff like bright lighting, no more music, other drunk people, maybe her friends find her or text her wondering where she is, maybe her boyfriend texts her, etc so you want to be pro-actively leading her off for food or whatever.

@scribblerg
“One can “know” that being one’s own mental point of origin is crucial but until one becomes a selfish prick, well I say nothing has actually been learned until then.”

This is why I make guys go infield. You can’t just sit there and pontificate what your mental point of origin is. You need to go out and experience shit and LEARN what it is. Softek won’t develop a mental point of origin unless he’s out infield but his girl won’t let him go out infield so he’s stuck in limbo.


YaReally
on May 30th, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
“I’ve been trying to apply the “calibrate after the fact” thing Julien mentions a lot (and Jeffy in one video too I think) consciously and it does really work.”

Ya this is a big part of my game. I don’t need a GOOD reaction, I just want *A* reaction, and if it’s a reaction that involves shit-testing me, all the better. They love the rollercoaster ride of “I thought you were an asshole but now I realize maybe you’re not”. It also subcomms that you’re used to assuming good reactions and getting away with saying/doing stuff like that because you handle it so normal like it’s no big deal and you’re subcomming that you have social/sexual calibration when you read their discomfort and step back and smooth it over instead of being a sperg and making them more uncomfortable…that also seeps way back into their brain to let them know “so if I’m with him and uncomfortable with something we’re doing, he’ll be able to notice and, since he’s already demonstrated he does it, calibrate and ease up, so I feel more comfortable with him by default VS the guy where I don’t know if he’s going to be calibrated if I have some ASD/LMR and make things weird and bad feels”.

@redlight
“so a passionate kiss or kisses would be wrong, as it would either not make a connection or it would not build sexual tension? One never does that? Dating is so complex.”

If your goal is to get the validation of sucking face, then ya, go ahead and shove your tongue down her throat at the mall for 20 minutes when you don’t have a sex location lined up and enjoy spanking to the memory of it when her ASD is too triggered to meet up again lol But if your goal is to get the lay, keep the kiss to something light and romantic and pull away first so you don’t trigger ASD.

“The issue with passionate kisses isn’t that they don’t increase sexual tension – the problem is that they DO too well.”

This. I can finger a girl in the mall, but if I can’t get her to a sex location she’s a LOT more likely to feel like I view her as a slut when I try to get her to come over to my place next time and that can bring up more resistance and trying to NOT put out to change that imagined view of her etc But if I just show I CAN escalate, but don’t go too far, she’s a lot more likely to be cool with just coming over the next time.

It’s just a low % move. Newbies run into this problem all the time because they’re so eager to makeout and enjoy that makeout so much that they stop thinking about the overall chess game and just focus on moving that pawn.

“Is a passionate kiss a serious makeout, or hard escalation? I’ve always gone for the passionate kiss, but not a makeout, and it has always seemed better than a quick peck”

Your definition of a passionate kiss about the max you want to do if you don’t have a green light clear path to a sex location. He’s not saying he’s going to peck her on the forehead like that gay drawing. He’s just saying he’s not going to do this:

It’s not that you CAN’T do it, it’s just a lower percentage play and we try to focus on consistent high percentage plays.

“This all seems mild compared to some of Julien’s moves.”

Julien always has a sex location planned and a dozen ways to try to get her there and he knows to figure out her logistics and try to dismantle them and to back off if they’re unworkable etc so he can usually find the clear path to the sex location, even if it’s “behind a dumpster in the alley over there” or “the couch in my buddy’s apartment I’m crashing at” lol Julien also generally makes the girls work/invest to get the kiss whereas most guys come off as desperately humping her leg like a dog (ie – in Julien’s frame he’s GIVING the girls a kiss, handing them a gift they’ve earned…in most guy’s frame the girls are LETTING them kiss them or GIVING the kiss to them).

Denying and teasing her with the kiss builds way more sexual tension and makes her chase harder than actually giving her the sloppy makeout when you can’t lead it to full sex (5:38):

On that note with regards to the previous sex discussion, more pro-tips: another way I make sure my girls get off without me needing to P in V jackhammer for half an hour is I do that same thing Julien is doing in this vid but when I’m doing oral. Lick/kiss/touch everywhere AROUND their pussy/clit (slowly stroke nibble etc up her inner thighs, around her nipples), without quiiiiiite touching their clit or slipping anything inside their pussy, just lightly graze across their clit once in a while and pull away as they try to rub it against your fingertip etc. Builds crazy anticipation so that when I DO finally touch them or slide something in (and even then I’ll just slide the tip of a finger in shallow and then slide it back out and go back to teasing etc), it has WAY more impact to them than if I just shoved my fingers in deep immediately and started ramming away lol Requires zero real effort to do this ’cause you can do this with just fingertips if you want…also useful for whiskey dick nights or “so drunk the room is spinning and I might barf” nights where I have to kill some time and sober up lol just lay my head on her thigh and tease for a solid 20 min lol

Same with edging, I’ll get her right on the edge of orgasming then go back to teasing without touching (or letting her touch), then edge her again and again and THEN finally do the “real” work (complete the oral or go P in V) and at that point a strong breeze will make her cum so she thinks “wow you made me cum from P in V”, meanwhile I was really only in there thrusting away for a couple minutes before she came lol I just primed her strategically. Orgasm is more powerful when you edge her a few times too.


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 12:38 pm
Original Link

@redlight
“the goal is to build unresolved sexual tension and attraction by controlled push/pull reward/pullback just like on those chick movies, TV shows, and books, so that she has to seek resolution or forever wonder the mighthavebeen.”

This. Women can get sex whenever they want, just like you can fast-forward to the end of a movie whenever you want…but the fun is in experiencing the WHOLE movie. On a similar note, it can actually be helpful to NOT give her your phone number, because when you do that it removes all the pressure for her to come with you…she knows if she has your number that she can just see you some other time (and in the moment she legitimately thinks she WILL, she doesn’t realize she’s probably going to end up flaking). But if you don’t give her your number then it’s either come with you that night or she may never see you again and forever wonder what might have been.

@SJF
“I’ll bore you”

As I’ve said a thousand times could you please get off your victim complex boner with this “I’ll bore you” shit? I’ve never said anything about your FRs boring me and I’ve never tried to get you to NOT post them. Post whatever you want dude, I don’t care lol

@Softek
lol this is why I haven’t told you to just man up yet. This can be a looooong process. Part of the problem is Naturals develop a sort of solipsism where they don’t get that YOU don’t just “get” something because THEY get it. And the other half of it is a lot of guys learning game who pass that stage read your stuff and it reminds them of when they were like that and they resent/hate that version of themselves now and are much happier now and want you to just hurry up and get to where they are so they don’t have to see that shit anymore.

That’s also why I just keep re-stating that your problem is you need infield experience but your girl won’t let you have it. If you get out infield you’ll meet girls who are cool and who treat you better and over time you’ll just naturally come to view your current relationship in proper perspective. And the only thing stopping you is that your girl won’t let you (directly or indirectly) go interact with other women. So all you have to do is solve that problem (however you do it) and you’ll have free reign to get infield and the rest will naturally take care of itself. Just giving you one thing to focus on basically, and then trusting the field to do what the field does.

In real life I would just show up at your door and literally drag you out to the bar and shove you into interactions with girls. But over the net all I can really do is link videos of guys approaching and having fun interactions until you decide “what all those guys are doing looks more fun than the argument I just had with my girl” and hope that you decide to solve the problem of not being allowed to interact with other women before she ropes you into a pregnancy (which she WILL attempt to do regardless of what she says).

@Culum Struan
“The results are really good – the majority of the time the girl will come in and kiss YOU.”

This is the ideal result. In the past we focused a lot on pushing and pursuing hardcore, but now that girls have the insane options they have via social media online dating Tinder etc, personally I’m finding just going back to Mystery Method (DHV until SHE’S showing interest and then screen her and make HER chase YOU) works a lot better than chasing them because every time they open their phone they have a dozen guys chasing them via text…whereas in the past before social media guys had to approach and most were chickenshit so pursuing hard stood out. When everyone else zigs left, we zag right, and vice-versa. This is part of why I always push Mystery Method. How do you get the girl who has 100 options at her fingertip? Learn how to DHV and be the one option she chases instead of blending in with the 99 other options that chase HER.

@scray
lol to be fair, RDJ is 50+ and spent a bunch of time drugged up and in jail and shit and settled down with a wife and comes from an earlier era where guys like Blax Rollo SJF etc were convinced to seek out a monogamous end (especially when you have drug problems etc and buy into the “I need a woman to ground me and save me from myself”). Whereas Evans is seemingly a pretty clean-cut mid-30s guy who’s fully enjoying and capitalizing on his fame and has been brought up in a more openly “serious relationships?? No thanks, I’m a strong independent womyn!!” casual sex culture.

I don’t even really care who they’re dating or their history when I compare them though. All I look at is the interaction in the moment to moment and RDJ tends to dominate Evans (and most people around him). It’s subtle and you’re right that Evans is still cool and gives value and stuff, but in terms of what subcomms girls look for RDJ manages to keep pulling that 0.000001% cooler thing out.

“a) TOGETHER we fucking KILL it (very shocking at first)”

Ya, I had a good Natural buddy and we would just laugh as we entered the bar because we knew the other guys there weren’t going to be able to compete and we were both 10 steps ahead of the girls. Dude has LTR’ed up and is out of the game now but man, we had a period of just pure domination, it was awesome. He preferred rolling out with me over his other Natural buddies because my PUA skills were filling in gaps and blind spots that Naturals have and I was learning a lot of internal mindset stuff from hanging around him (like delusional confidence).

“i mean it’s funny because he gives him that look…but there’s this vibe of ‘I’m the King, if you’re fucking amazing then you’re fucking amazing…you don’t even know.””

If you mean Evans is giving him that look, drill a bit deeper. Evans is 100% sincere in his compliments, BUT RDJ is triggering him doing that on purpose. I use this a lot, like I KNOW when I’m good at something but I’ll act like I don’t think so and the person who legitimately believes I don’t know I’m good at it will do this “bro, no seriously, trust me, you don’t KNOW it but you’re amazing at it, no, look, I KNOW good, and you’re good, trust me man” like SINCERELY wanting me to believe in myself and see myself the way they see me, but the reality is I already do and I’m a few steps ahead of them on the chess board.

I might recognize what RDJ is doing easier because I do it myself so it stands out. The biggest tell is how RDJ doesn’t really CARE/react to the compliments. Compare that to in that How To Be The Coolest Guy video at 13:45 where when RDJ gives a compliment the guy receiving it and everyone listening falls into a hush of like “wow, he’s being sincere, this thing he’s saying carries WEIGHT” Like look how nervous/fidgety Cheadle gets and look at his eyes, it’s like his dad is saying “I’m proud of you, son” lol But that’s because Cheadle doesn’t have the same level of inner confidence RDJ has so hearing a compliment like that hits him hard. RDJ *KNOWS* he’s the shit already so when someone compliments him he’s not really moved at all because he already agrees with it and so he can just make offhand jokes and self-depreciate etc

Again it’s not that Evans isn’t COOL or a good dude or alpha or wouldn’t be fun to hang with or even be a BETTER bro than RDJ, it’s just purely in that “who comes off 0.00001% cooler” thing, RDJ tends to take it ’cause he’s a few steps ahead of the people he interacts with.

The more the other guy puts on the “I’m the King, I’m giving you my approval”, the more an RDJ will self-depreciate or turn it around with implying it’s cheesy etc. Like when I run into those Analyze This guys I’ll just be like “lol okay okay you’re right, I’m amazing and my dick is like an elephant trunk, now let’s go talk to some girls this is getting too gay” and just dismiss/devalue it and play it off to others as “lol that was awkward, my buddy is fuckin INTENSE lol but he’s a good dude”. Usually the guy is happy because he feels like he’s “gotten through” to me but ultimately to girls watching, he’s been reacting to me because what I do causes his reactions.

“and then the response is just for them to say something like ‘wow…’ and nod their head, as though you’re growing, or if that were hard for you…so that everyone knows that that is a big deal for someone like you.”

That’s where you just tack on “and you know I never say anything like this, so this is a big deal for me to admit that someone else MIGHT be almost as amazing as I am.” lol No biggie. What you described is VERY rare though, most people are insecure under the surface and respond with puppy-dog eyes when you give them a hardcore serious compliment. Like Cheadle wasn’t going to go “wow you’re growing up RDJ, I approve!” It’s just not in his subcomms that he has that level of confidence.

“and then it comes right back around to something like ‘oh is this unusual for you?’ like, just tooling you for seeming so surprised that someone is giving you praise.”

Again this doesn’t really happen much, ’cause generally you don’t wanna compliment someone who already thinks they’re the shit…like I would never compliment an RDJ because you can tell in his vibe that he knows he’s the shit so a compliment is just fluff for him. Like Evans can’t really read that his compliments don’t do anything for RDJ, he’s kind of like that bro that thinks he’s helping you out by interrupting your set to tell girls you have a huge dick lol…in his mind he’s totally helping you out and he has no real malicious intent, but you just kind of roll your eyes and go “ya my buddy is pretty hammered right now. Not that it’s not true, but…” and brush it off because you know he had good intentions and doesn’t realize you don’t need him to do that. But you probably won’t see RDJ giving a sincere compliment to a Kanye West because he knows there’s no point and it won’t be valued.

“this one is pretty money, but they just pull a yin-yang, where they just have made you more ‘civilized’ or ‘respectable.’ which is pretty genius, because it’s a sneaky way to build your value AGAIN like ‘oh yeah, without me he’d be off drunkenly putting his tongue down your throat….’ which actually GIVES you value, but it also gives him value as an authority figure who has more ‘tact.’”

Again (lol) this doesn’t happen very often. Most guys aren’t this sharp infield especially in front of girls and especially if they don’t really know you well. But for something like that I’d just drop a “I learned that tongue down the throat move from him. FIRST HAND. ;)” and try to take the back and forth into gay joke territory and try to get him to stumble lol But a guy who’s already reacting that sharp playing the “one-upsmanship” game of who’s the authority figure will probably be able to make gay jokes no problem too. From there it just kind of becomes either who stumbles first or me moving the girl away from him.

A lot of this is basically just going back and forth one-upping eachother trying to claim/display authority. Again this is VERY rare to run into infield, but when it happens it tends to either go until someone cracks and lets it end, or until you just end that interaction entirely lol Like it’s OKAY for them to counter it because you just counter it the exact same way as you both step one step higher than the other guy did and there’s no real end to that staircase.

“the response move i’ve seen to this, where you lightly tool them in a ‘okay let’s take it easy i don’t want to wake up pregnant’ way is just for them to act confused like ‘huh?’ and stop everything, and then when you don’t repeat yourself (you can’t), they just pretend like they got what you said and just LOUDLY laugh, like it’s the funniest shit ever.”

lol no biggie, just deadpan through the laughter or give the:

and to the girl throw a “lol my buddy’s a little slow when he drinks but he gets there eventually. You like em pretty but dumb, right? ;)” etc But again it’s not really about the words, it’s just about subcomming authority over the other guy.

Basically whoever reacts less comes off cooler. So like how RDJ will self-depreciate MORE the more intense an Analyze This guy gets, the more deadpan unreactive you get when someone is bursting out in laughter and the more you make their reaction look over the top like TOO much, the more you keep that 0.0001% to the girl.

“Evans’ main problem is just that he does shit like shake his head….literally, if Evans would just stop, listen to RDJ, and then throw his head back and laugh….90% of his problems would be fixed. because it resettles it into their value-giving frame….”

Right, but he WON’T, is the key. And RDJ KNOWS that. RDJ hanging out with Kanye West would look very different. RDJ can read Evans a mile away so he knows that if he pushes certain buttons, Evans will react in full good-spirited nature a certain way and RDJ can play off that. RDJ is playing a chess game while Evans is sort of like a big happy dog wagging his tail lol But RDJ is good at reading people.

It’s kind of like this:

Kanye thinks he’s the shit but Mayer, the dorky white nerdy guy, just CONSTANTLY tools him over and over and Kanye can’t keep up and is fully reactive to Mayer. Mayer has the same type of deadpan humor as RDJ and he has a read on Kanye. Kanye isn’t about to pull out any of the counter-moves you listed in the moment. Like your buddy being so quick to do that stuff, has probably been in a TON of AMOG battles over his life and instinctively knows to be on the lookout for these things especially at a bar competing with guys for women, whereas Evans Kanye etc have no idea they’re even IN a “battle”.

It’s not that it’s unstoppable, it’s just that it’s VERY rare for guys to be sharp and on-guard and experienced enouogh to whip out any real counter-measures infield.

“but the main point here is the ‘how cool it is to see them interact’ thing, because when you get people with a lot of charisma together it’s this strange value-building vortex.”

Right, it’s awesome. Don’t get me wrong lol like when I hang with other guys I prefer to just build EVERYONE up and have us all feeling high-value, I’m not really competing with my buddies for girls. But at a house party or hanging with guys I don’t know well etc I’ll pull out the 0.0001% thing.

“like, between the two one will be a little cooler, but at the SAME TIME both will be building one another’s value higher and higher and higher and higher. like one person’s will grow .0001% more….but both will just get cooler.”

Right, I only focus on that 0.00001% because I’ve had to directly compete with these guys a lot (my Natural buddy was a great dude, his Natural friends I had to roll with a bunch were assholes I had to directly compete with lol), so I’m SUPER aware of that 0.00001%. If it was JUST me and my one buddy then ya, I don’t care at all, we both have higher value than any other guy in the room regradless. But when I’m put in those situations where I have like 6 Natural AMOGs competing for the girl I’ve been talking to, understanding that 0.00001% is key to being the one who gets her.

“like if me and my buddy start at a 7 SMV wise to a chick, and we do all of this stuff….and the chick is a 7. let’s say he edges me out .001%….that may happen, but by the end of the interaction we’re both 9’s to her (or a 9 and a 9.00001 lol). does that make sense? have you observed this?”

Ya, exactly, that’s what I was trying to say in my last paragraphs lol The fact that you guys are prioritizing eachother and helping eachother and tooling eachother and just generally showing that you both have value to eachother, it all stockpiles. Because look at OTHER guys around you…other guys are fucking lame. They either directly aggressively compete with eachother and throw eachother under the bus for a chance at pussy, or they don’t even enjoy interacting with eachother and are just looking around the room for girls, or one or both of them just isn’t COOL and they don’t really have a good bromance vibe going, etc So the fact that you guys are clearly COOL to begin with but then are also spreading value around and to eachother etc, regardless of the 0.00001% you’re both light years ahead of the other guys around you with your display she’s experiencing.

One thing you’ll probably find hanging with him is that girls will start to not care which one of you they get, they’ll go back and forth flirting with BOTH of you and be receptive to EITHER of you pulling her, or BOTH of you and be down for a MFM threesome etc. Like, when both of your value is high like that and is about equal, it’s like you talking to an HB10 blond and brunette, you don’t care WHICH one you get, you’re winning the jackpot lottery either way, so the girls go into this passive mode where either/both of you can take her. It’s funny/weird shit but makes sense when you understand Hypergamy…basically her Hypergamy is happy with either one of you. (meanwhile she’ll still make some chode take her on 3 dates before getting a kiss lol)

That all said, I’m not into the MFM thing, and I tend to have to compete with Naturals/AMOGs a lot (because I look like a guy that competitive AMOGs think should be easy to take girls off, and cool Naturals love hanging around my positive attitude and that I’ll actually approach girls and wing properly etc) so understanding the little nuances behind this “slightly cooler than the other guy without looking like an asshole (like what RDJ is doing)” helps me out lol


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 1:05 pm
Original Link

@scray
Skimming back over my post I think the difference in what I’m looking at VS you is I’m viewing it from the perspective of being a direct competition VS a cooperative effort. So I’m seeing what RDJ is doing that will help him in a direct competition with Evans, VS like, these are two cool guys who are going to boost eachother’s value and girls will want both of them. I’m looking at it like “but what’s RDJ doing that will get him that 0.0001% edge to directly compete”.

Try battling with your buddy a bit if you haven’t yet, see if you can get the girls to consistently pick you and focus on you over him, VS just being cool with both of you having high-value. Like once in a while make a conscious effort to leave him in the dust just for the practice lol He won’t get pissed, he’ll respect you for having that ability. With my one buddy 99% of the time we would both just be cool and find sets with more than one girl and if it was a solo set just wing the other guy and let the other guy take her etc etc no competition really…but every once in a while I’d turn it on for my own practice and leave him staring at the back of their heads so he can remember “oh ya, he’s not as in-your-face as I am, but dude has skills” lol And then give him one of the girls of course.

With his asshole buddies though it was basically always practicing out-cooling them ’cause hey they started it. πŸ˜€


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Original Link

@scray
Actually one more follow-up that’s important: if he’s a high-energy guy like a Stifler or Evans, when you DO try to compete with him a bit, try to do it with as LITTLE effort/energy as possible. Like instead of just dominating the energy in the set and grabbing the girls etc, see if you can use lasers/subcomms/unreactiveness/body-language/positioning/etc to subtly come off just slightly cooler and draw the girls off him to CHOOSING you without observably doing much. If you can do it to your buddy you’ll be able to do it to normal guys EASY.

Like if I hang out with normal guys at a house party I don’t have to do much to be cooler than them, I don’t have to grab the girls and get in their faces and blatantly AMOG battle etc, I can lay back a lot and just be slightly less reactive and care just slightly less about the outcome and be just slightly more of an authority (like RDJ in that clip) etc and the girls will gravitate toward me because they’re pinging off the other guys’ reactions to me.

But that’s normal guys, with legit Naturals I gotta be more pro-active ’cause they know not to let the girls just run around and risk their prey escaping lol


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Original Link

@hank holiday
Your Day2 is pimp. Don’t listen to the haters. It’s versatile and laced with a ton of value and you can use it on any girl and adjust/calibrate parts of it on the fly. I WISH more guys planned out their Day2s like that, all they would have to do is get the girl to show up and the design of the Day2 would take care of the rest. It’s not that you CAN’T go faster or just directly invite her to your place etc, and you’ll wanna experiment with that down the road, it’s just that depending on your goals consistency can be more important than speed. Like I’ve said, Mystery Method’s 7 hour rule wasn’t “that’s how long it takes to have sex”, it was more about that’s around how long it takes to make the girl fall madly in love with you and want to be an LTR/mLTR.

@scray
Thought on it a bit more and I think part of why I don’t run into the comebacks very often is because with my looks guys let their guard down. If I was walking up looking like Chad Thundercock, instantly every guy’s guard goes up, or guys wouldn’t enter my set unless they were 100% prepared for a “battle” and fully on point, the same way you wouldn’t walk into a ring with Mike Tyson without expecting to get hit and being prepared for him to swing at you.

But I don’t look like a guy that would be a threat so I get a little extra edge where the guy is suddenly hit with a jab and stunned because he didn’t see it coming and didn’t have his hands up, and by the time he catches up and realizes “oh shit I walked into a hidden Tyson”, it’s too late because *I* was prepared the second he entered my set, so I’m already throwing the rest of my combo before he can get his footing back.

Most of the guys that I do that stuff to don’t even realize I’m doing it because they aren’t expecting it from me, and in set every second counts. And if the guy is too on point to deal with then my goal switches from be cooler than him to spike her buying temp and get her the fuck out of there. I’ve carried girls over my shoulder away from guys before lol

@IAS
“Is RSD Owen and Todd also mostly like that nowadays?”

Ya, Madison from RSD is a new guy on the block and he’s got a good chilling giving value vibe too, so check his stuff out. Owen teases a bunch but it’s usually from a place of giving value VS Julien who’s just seeing how far he can push the asshole drama stuff lol

@Blaximus
“social conditioning thing ( which I am not affected by…. but you guys will never, ever believe that)”

When a sweet little old lady smiles at you, do you smile back? Congrats, you are affected by social conditioning and social pressure. Do you try not to sit in the disabled seats on the public bus when there’s disabled people that need to get on? Did you call anyone sir/ma’am growing up? Do you spit on the ground outside but not spit on the floor inside someone’s house? Congrats, you are affected by social conditioning and social pressure. It’s not just about loudmouth neighbors making fun of your rose bushes or guys trying to pick fights with you.

“It appears that you indorse acting on every desire if there are no downsides or consequences in doing so”

Well, I mean, what reason would you have AGAINST that? There are downsides and consequences to eating nothing but donuts (obesity etc). There are downsides and consequences to drinking too much booze (alcoholism health problems etc). There are downsides to NOT sticking to the guitar (not being able to play, which is a downside if that’s your goal).

But there’s no downside or consequence to me, say, having a sip of this delicious water beside me. So it’s kind of silly for me to say I’m developing willpower by not drinking this water. Why would you look at that and think “there’s no downsides or consequences to drinking that water, but you just shouldn’t do it BECAUSE”?

If you legitimately don’t have any sexual desire for other women, that’s one thing, but Scray’s pointing out that you said every man has sexual desires. So if you HAVE them but are choosing not to act on them, then it’s either because you’re afraid of downsides or consequences (like you think it’ll cause drama in your relationship etc), or because you legitimately no longer have the sexual desire for women that you once had.

But if you HAVE those desires and are CHOOSING not to act on them, then our question is would you, if you knew there would be no downsides or consequences, and if NOT then how is that different from me not drinking this water which I have a desire for and there are no downsides or consequences?

It’s not a jab at you or your lifestyle, it’s trying to narrow down inconsistencies. Because a LOT of social conditioning is “just do it BECAUSE”. Because why? Because that’s what a man is supposed to do? By who’s value system? The FI? Know what I mean?

“The idea of ” exercising ” self discipline …idk what…without a specific goal(?)… We just disagree, and that’s cool.”

This is the part I think we can’t relate to. We don’t do stuff “just because” or because “it’s the right thing to do” or because “that’s being a man” etc, those are socially conditioned beliefs. We do stuff because it serves a purpose…but when we ask what the purpose of not drinking that glass of water is, no one can really answer it so we go “okay, well, why do you NOT drink it then?” “BECAUSE, man.” “???”

“There is no fear involved, especially no fear of consequence. Most major decisions in life come with some form of consequence.”

We’re saying what if it doesn’t come with consequence. What if you can have exactly what you have now, but more girls in your bed, no conseqeunces lol

“men must do this thing in every case, all the time, exceptions are not logical”

We’re not saying what anyone HAS to do. All we’re asking is why guys would choose to NOT do something they have a desire for that has no downsides or consequences.

“If I had a dead bedroom, I would divorce and do whatever came to my mind”
“My wife woke me this morning by riding me like a champion. So if I could bang somebody else, I have no need.”

So basically you choose monogamy because the frequency of the sex you have keeps your desire for other girls at bay. Which is basically be the same as not having desire (VS just, I don’t know, appreciating beauty) because if your wife stopped having sex with you for a few months, you would have actual desire back (so it’s not that you’ve “lost desire in your old age” so much as “she keeps you from having it”). And at THAT point you would be on board with us, bailing on monogamy/marriage to chase your desires?

Is that a fair summary or no?


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Original Link

@scray
“so if there’s a dude who seems super alpha to me but like….his gf and all the fbs or whatever he’s ever had are like 6’s, I’m like ‘hmmmm…’”

lol there’s so much else to it though. Like some super pimp alpha dude living in Buttfuck Idaho just isn’t going to have access to the same girls he’d have access to in like, Vegas. And guys who are alpha as fuck around other dudes or in their comfort zones, aren’t necessarily able to bring that out around women or aren’t chasing women or are still under Blue Pill conditioning looking for serial monogamy etc Like a LOT of these guys were brought up under the same social conditioning that said “find a good woman and settle down”.

I mean look at Hugh Jackman’s dating history. Just his ugly wife lol Dude is WOLVERINE. They SHOULD all be out there tearing it up like DiCaprio, but they didn’t get the red pill message.

“(IMO Evans is still light years ahead of most nice guys because he keeps himself in the ‘give value’ frame without starting to become snippy)”

Ya like I say, Evans is great. I’d way rather have him with me than a lot of dudes. But I’m talking about that 0.00001% that is the reason this guy used RDJ as his example of “cool” instead of Evans and why RDJ seems “cool” when he interacts with other people etc

“i’ve only seen one person exhibit strong nice guy game. and like, RDJ and Evans interactions are on a high level, so I just see the extra inch Evans could go (because i’ve now seen it IRL) to turn it all around, and since it’s so marginal already, I’m like “shit he’s good, he’s almost there” so I’m like ‘they’re even,” even tho, you’re right that as/is RDJ is probably stealing most of it by a hair.”

Right, I’ve been out with a ton of Evans so to me I see all his flaws and blindspots and the little “traps” he falls into because I had to learn to do what RDJ is doing, so whenever RDJ does it I just grin ’cause I know exactly what Evans is going to respond with and RDJ just chills back and lets it happen and gives the plate another spin to keep it going and he knows exactly what he’s doing.

That’s why I say it’s not a BIG difference. It’s not like Evans sucks or it’s going to be 100% of people like RDJ over Evans every time they interact or anything. It’s not even that Evans and RDJ will ALWAYS play out that way (maybe they’re in an off mood or whatever). It’s just that in these particular interactions, RDJ is very subtly elevating himself and using Evan’s predictable reactions to elevate himself to that 0.00001% cooler level. Most people probably won’t even notice it, they’ll just instinctively grin at RDJ and think “that guy has charisma”.

Evans COULD try getting one up on RDJ but I think RDJ is too clever for it to work…like you don’t develop what RDJ’s doing without knowing how to keep it going if it gets further along. Evans VS some other dude though, like Cheadle or whoever, no problem, Evans all the way. It’s sort of like Russell Brand. You can’t beat Russell Brand at Russell Brand’s game, he’s too good at it lol

A big part of it is knowing when to mix things up and change the flow. “My buddy is awesome” “no man, you’re way more awesome” “c’mon man don’t be humble, I taught you better than that, just embrace how awesome you are”, and then instead of continuing that flow, switch it up and go “ok you win, I’m awesome” and then agree & amplify it. So it’s like you were leading him down one path playing along and then switch it up deking him out and sprinting in the complete opposite direction. And doing that as much as possible as fast as possible to sort of shake off your tail. Very few guys can keep up with that kind of thing because it comes out of nowhere and they’re like “wait I thought we were going THIS way, now we’re going THIS way??” and ultimately that makes it look like they’re reacting to the pace/direction you’re setting. Not sure if that makes sense lol

“but i mean, i know that more than a few times he’s put me in check with some good moves, so it’s caused me to re-evaluate how i view interactions in order to get better.”

Ya, hanging with a guy like that will give you superpowers for hanging around normal dudes. I ate shit for a while when I first started hanging with Naturals, and then for a while I was just able to keep pace with them, but after long enough and rolling to bars etc with enough of them I learned how to stay that 0.00001% ahead and how to spot guys that are too much challenge and pull the chute while my value is high enough to move the girl away from them so I don’t have to directly compete lol

“‘Right, but he WON’T, is the key. And RDJ KNOWS that.’

that’s money. i think that’s probably the key. if his frame is to be nice and to have that value-giving approach, there just will be places he’s not willing to go, and it’s just a matter of finding those ledges.”

Right, Evans is ultimately trapping himself by playing up the good guy image. Charlie Sheen got away with whatever he wanted because he never pretended to be a good guy. RDJ has a sketchy past so he step over some boundaries and we’ll all accept it. Goes back to that vid of Tyler and his good-looking Dentist Nice Guy buddy where the girl at the bar scolds the Dentist guy for making offensive comments but then LOVES Tyler for making the same comments. And because RDJ knows Evans can’t leave that box (nor can most of hollywood really), he can go just a bit further than Evans can go on the “bad boy” scale.

It would be more interesting to see RDJ interacting with like, a Tommy Lee or someone (I don’t know celebrities well lol), who’s just a full out shameless bad boy scumbag type. But I think RDJ has cleaned up his act just enough that he would be able to pull the “I’m too mature to do the things this guy is doing” card (which Evans COULD play, but WON’T).

Also consider from RDJ’s perspective, he’s not necessarily trying to bang that interviewer or his groupies or whatever when he does these things…but it DOES benefit him and his career etc GREATLY to be viewed as a guy who represents “coolness”. Whereas Evans is still in his prime and doesn’t necessarily need an edge yet, he can just be a “good dudebro” and land leading roles.

“maybe ill put up some FR’s since you have experience with this…”

Ya man throw some situations you’ve been stumped by up.

@Blaximus @SJF @scray
“that’s why i don’t really want to drag it out because i don’t want it to be a ting where you think I think you’re ‘just old’ or some stupid shit like that.”

lol this. That’s why I was gonna let it go ’cause it looks like too sensitive an issue with too big a gap to cross in terms of getting what we’re saying across and I don’t see it going anywhere useful lol All we’re really saying is that we’re looking into ways to have what you guys have but with the ADDITION of more variety and more girls with minimal/no negative consequences or downsides, and ideally we even figure out how to do that into the settled down and raising kids lifestyle, so men can have a MUCH better option than “play the field and enjoy chasing your desires when you’re young, then settle down into monogamy and hope that the girl you picked will fuck you for the next 40 years till your dick stops working or else suffer for the next 40 years restraining yourself and holding back on your desires”.

We’re trying to figure out how to get guys to be able to play the field and have fun, but keep doing that while having a Primary/kids/etc and still be able to chase those desires without blowing everything up, that’s all lol No hate for you guys, but part of how we can explain to a guy like Softek that he should go play the field is to point out how there’s no REAL benefit for a man to monogamous commitment (look how that turned out for the last guy who gave it to her) if he isn’t at that point in his life yet, because every “just stick to the guitar” makes a Softek stay another month in his relationship expecting some kind of unspecified reward at the end of his suffering that we all KNOW isn’t coming.

Like we can’t SHOW Softek your lives to show him why what he’s doing is NOT the same as what you guys did, but we can ask questions and look at your logic to show why the girl he’s with is not the same as Blax’s wife and why Blax views his relationship the way he does and how that differs from a Softek etc

“we can all agree that softek needs to GTFO of his shitty relationship and that, at his age, he should be slaying pussy (or at least getting out there a little bit)”

lol this.

@Blaximus
“And no, I don’t automatically do anything, including smiling at sweet little old ladies.”

lol ok so everything you do is 100% self-motivated and you don’t do ANYTHING because of social conditioning at all. You show up for a job interview dressed in homeless person rags unshaven with no haircut and bad breath, you get into an elevator and face the back of it every time instead of the front and sometimes just lay on the floor, when someone offers you a seat you turn the seat upside down and sprawl out on the floor. You never say thankyou for anything. If a child is in your way you shove them over. When a cop asks you to stop you just walk past them. When someone pulls a gun on you you just walk up to them calmly and take it out of their hand. When you get out of your car you leave it unlocked with the door wide open and all your money on the front seat. Because social conditioning doesn’t affect you and all those things you were born just instinctively wanting to do, you knew when you were a baby that couldn’t speak that you wanted to get your hair cut for a job interview. lol

I get that it’s a pride thing like “no one tells ME what to do!!” but c’mon man, we are ALL socially conditioned in a million little ways. There’s nothing wrong with it. A lot of social conditioning is GOOD and keeps society functioning. I’m GLAD when someone is socially conditioned to pee in my toilet instead of on my floor lol

“You seem to be equating the situation with oneitis or something.”

No lol It’s just weird to me to not drink that water or to laud the act of not drinking that water that I desire that has no consequences or downsides as some kind of big “you’ll understand when you join the SEALs and get there someday like us old guys” achievement of self-control is all lol


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 3:58 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus
“I could talk with you forever if I didn’t have other shit to do. He he he…”

lol work is still slow for me right now so I get to fuck around.

“If I had to put a number on it, I’d say that around 80% of my life has nothing to do with social conditioning. The older I get, the less I’m willing to just go along. I think it’s a natural progression.”

See THIS statement I have ZERO problem with. Hell for you it’s probably like 90% has nothing to do with it. It’s the absolute “bro, NOTHING I DO is socially conditioned trust me” stuff where it’s like oh okay so when you go to a restaurant do you just push people out of their chairs so you can sit down or do you just walk to the front of the line at McDonald’s because fuck everyone else? That’s not realistic lol That’s all I’m saying.

Most people are the opposite, like 80%-90% of their life IS socially conditioned. There’s nothing wrong with it, unless that social conditioning is BAD (like 100% trusting cops might not be a great idea, just like a kid 100% trusting a priest etc). But like, no one is IMMUNE to social conditioning entirely…even a guy who spends his life in prison picks up social conditioning from that environment for how to get by in prison.

The only people who are 100% immune to social conditioning would be some kind of legit spergy socio/psychopath which some of the edgelords in the Manosphere/TRP like to think they are but they aren’t lol

@Blaximus @SJF @scray

Put it this way: there are guys here who are GOING to look up to you guys as role models. But they don’t have your life experience, so they don’t know WHY you made the choices you’ve made. And WE can’t explain it because we aren’t following the same path. But in your guys’ writing is the underlying “sure, go play around NOW, we encourage that NOW that you’re young and free go have fun NOW, but when you come to those forks in the road, someday when you’re old and wise like us, well, let’s just say choosing that fork is worth the suffering”

And to someone who’s questioning what society told them they should just do because “it’s the right thing to do”, it’s like wait why is it worth it? What’s the benefit? Why choose monogamy at ANY point? These guys are cool and sound like they have happy lives in monogamy somehow and I WANT monogamy because I grew up thinking that’s the way to be happy, but all my friends and every other example I see seems to be miserable in it, so what are these guys doing, what’s their perspective, why did they make those choices, what’s their reasoning/rational behind it? I have to just cross my fingers for 40 years and hope I somehow learn the lessons they did? Maybe I SHOULD stay in this relationship then, I mean, I’m suffering in it and that builds willpower and self-control if I don’t leave and it’ll apparently be worth it to take this fork in the road, somehow…so I guess I’ll just stay with this BPD? These old guys seem happy and clearly these younger guys don’t know wtf they’re talking about since they haven’t “been there” like the older guys, so I guess I’ll just model them and they say to just develop my self-control not doing stuff that I desire that has no negative consequences.

Like, we’re not trying to insult you or your lifestyle lol It’s just that if there’s ANY reason why a guy should choose monogamy at ANY point in his life, it would be nice to look at that reason and be able to analyze it and look for alternatives that have the same benefits etc to create a more optimal strategy for men with a higher happiness consistency rate than monogamy which has a massively low rate of happiness these days.


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 8:46 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
“he’s saying that because he KNOWS Evans will compliment him in response”

Right. He probably wouldn’t do that with like, Kanye or someone. But he KNOWS Evans and has a full read of how Evans will react to stuff (which you can develop just through interacting with a lot of people and running into Evans types), so he knows when he talks himself down Evans will talk him up.

“but I’m not exactly sure why that helps RDJ”

Who’s higher value: the guy you think is high value when you walk into the room? Or the guy THAT GUY thinks is higher value and is praising and jacking off in your face to? It’s a subtle way of getting high-value guys to put your value above theirs in that moment, and they don’t really realize they’re doing it because from THEIR perspective they’re giving props to a guy who doesn’t believe in himself, but girls pick up on how you don’t actually care about the compliment which subcomms that you already know it’s true (aka you have confidence). A lot of little domino effect subcomms happening in a split second lol

“RDJ is moving a LOT less, physically.”

More importantly than how MUCH they move is WHY they move. When RDJ just said “glad SOMEBODY remembered” or does a simple stare at Evans the second time when he says a simple “I’d like to think so, yeah” and looks at him again, both times but especially the first time, Evans physically reacts a ton. If you watch that Leicester Square AMOG breakdown there’s a point where they mention a lot of alphas will try to hold court with big expressive physicality…in a bar, moving big might help draw attention, but RDJ knows he’s a part of the interview so he doesn’t HAVE to try to hold attention, he can be distracted and the interviewer will still include him so why put in any effort? This kind of goes into guys not being worried about letting silence hang VS having a motor mouth because they’re scared if they stop talking the person will lose interest in them. That’s not what’s going on with Evans in this clip but like, this dynamic looks similar and is something you’ll notice infield when you watch out for it.

Thing is being physically expressive isn’t necessarily a BAD thing, like Russell Brand is EXTREMELY physically expressive when he talks. But the key is WHY they’re being expressive. Russell Brand is doing it because he just wants to do it, whereas a lot of Evans’ big motions are reactions to RDJ. So you end up with one guy who can just raise an eyebrow deadpan and make the other guy burst out laughing and reactive, who comes off like they have more impact/value? In pickup when you get more in-depth with subcomms you start to see how that old saying goes, something like don’t say what you can emote with your body language, don’t use your body language to say what you can emote with a smile, don’t use your smile to say what you can emote with your eyes etc, like Tyler talks about this a lot recently where he can get the same reaction as a clever witty routine with just looking at the girl a certain way and holding the tension. The less you do and the bigger people react to you, the more impact/value it looks like you have.

“Then the interviewer falls into RDJ’s frame and piles on with that them”

Right, at this point RDJ has done almost NOTHING, but he’s already got this super high-value alpha good-looking Evans dude AND this reporter chick reacting to him and falling into his frame completely. He’s controlling the frame of the conversation and both of them are sucked into it because the strongest frame always wins and RDJ has a super strong frame. But like, the interview is no longer on track, Evans is qualifying why he forgot about his birthday etc. Again these are subtle tiny tiny little things, but these are the 0.00001% that add up infield in the moment to the girls. And from afar all girls see is two people reacting to the guy who’s doing almost nothing.

“babble something about inappropriate jokes”

Notice this is where he’s trapped in being the Nice Guy, he’s stifled and scared to make inappropriate jokes because it doesn’t fit his image of the good guy. This goes back to what we were saying before where Evans is sort of unable to cross a certain line so he comes off like he’s self-censoring etc (lower-value behavior, he’s reacting to imagined social pressure in his head to portray his good guy all-american clean cut image) whereas RDJ is just saying what’s congruently on his mind.

“Duude..that night we spent together WAS my gift to you..you’ve been asking me for so long”

See RDJ COULD say that in a TV interview though. Because he doesn’t have to hold back, he isn’t putting on a Good Guy image. So he has much more freedom. When he was press touring with Jude Law for Sherlock Holmes they made all kinds of gay bromance jokes and it was totally fine because both have a bad boy sexual image to the media whereas Evans is more of a family friendly Ken Doll.

“Soon after RDJ says of Evans “He’s come a long way” – half joking sure, but also asserting his authority.”

Right. Like HE’S the guy that determines how Evans is doing. And Scray’s buddy would try to come over top of that and re-establish HIMSELF as the authority but Evans (and the vast majority of guys) won’t do that, they just play into his frame like Evans does. Which again puts him reacting to RDJ’s frame.

“Around 1:30ish – RDJ switches into serious mode about how he enjoys playing Iron Man and legitimately compliments Evans about how good he is at playing Captain America etc – and it all has more weight because he asserted his authority earlier and joked around etc.”

Exactly. Like they said about James Dean, he didn’t smile much so when he DID it meant something. RDJ is great at switching to sincere heartfelt compliments, and when he does you see everyone always reacts the same: they go quite and look at him with puppydog eyes like their owner is handing them a treat. Whereas when they compliment him, he just doesn’t care and makes fun of it. Which reaction implies that you already HAVE deep unshakable internal confidence?

Notice on the “who was working out the hardest” thing Evans plays Mr Nice Guy we’re all friends and RDJ just repeats him sarcastically making fun of it and doesn’t even answer her question. He’s just doing what he wants.

“again, not sure how this helps him”

It’s just unreactive. Almost like her question was dumb and his answer was dumb and the whole thing is too dumb to him to take seriously. But it’s not MEAN or RUDE, it’s just like, “ehhh is this really worth the effort? Next question”. Whereas Evans JUMPS on EVERY question to answer it like a puppydog jumping for treats. Evans is constantly reacting to her and RDJ, and RDJ is just doing whatever, showing interest when the conversation IS interesting and being distracted when it’s not. It’s like talking to a girl who isn’t passing your qualifications and you let your attention drift off a bit because she hasn’t earned it. But he balances that out by giving his FULL attention when the person ACTUALLY earns it or he has something REAL to say like a sincere compliment or answer. If he was ALWAYS distant, he would just seem like a dick. But he gives enough attention/reward that people learn “ok I have to EARN his attention and try to KEEP it”.

Russel Brand does a good version of this on that news morning show he tears up (with that Mika chick) when the host guy asks him some boring question and he just turns around and says “what do all these people do?” referencing all the people on computers behind him. He’s not RUDE to the guy, but it’s like, the guy just isn’t interesting enough in that moment. He sincerely compliments the guy at points, but teaches him that like, if you want my attention, EARN it.

He’s also devaluing everything Evans said with the sarcasm. Like he’s helping PAINT Evans as the Captain Goody Two Shoes Nice Guy, which Evans thinks HELPS him because that’s the image he’s trying to portray to be marketable. But by tooling him on it (like the start when he makes fun of his big complimentary speech), he devalues what he’s said.

This kind of stuff is good for group/mixed sets and competing, but one on one with a girl I’ll just laser focus on her and try to get lasers locked.

“Around 2:40 RDJ gets asked if he’s like the Godfather of these movies and Evans covers his mouth and bigs up RDJ…after which RDJ promptly self-deprecates himself and changes the subject to Ant-Man or whatever..hmm.”

Right, again who looks high-value here? It’s not like RDJ *ACTUALLY* thinks he just got lucky, his self-depreciation CLEARLY isn’t sincere, it’s the same as me saying that I have a 3″ dick. VS if I said to girls that I’m insecure about my weight and actually looked sad about it like it was a real insecurity, where I would be lowering my value.

Also pay attention to how the girl reacts WHEN RDJ makes Evans react to him. Part of why she sides with RDJ against Evans on the birthday stuff is because she’s instinctively siding with the higher value.

And RDJ isn’t even bothering to use laser eye-contact or anything, like this is low effort for him. If he wanted to really take over her attention he could turn it on because he’s already doing a lot with just his verbals and minimal body-language. But because they’re bros he passes the ball back to Evans and lets Evans take the lead on most of the group questions etc

@SJF @Blaximus
“We three (Blax, Rollo, SJF) got in before the lock in a “seems like the right thing to do” situation. And it was the right thing to do. Do we actually seem unhappy?”

Ya that’s my point. You guys seem happy. If some guy comes here thinking man this monogamy thing sounds like a bum deal, but here’s 3 guys super happy in it. How are they doing it?? And the explanation they’re getting is this mystic mysterious “bro, just keep playing the guitar, take the fork in the road” etc stuff it’s like, “okay so I SHOULD stay with this BPD?? And she’ll somehow turn INTO your guys’ wives? I guess? Because I have self-control from not talking to other girls and chose the right fork?”

Like how did you guys get there from where Scray and I are at and WHY? ’cause guys with BP conditioning WANT it to work out the way it did for you guys, but in 2016 we’re dealing with a very different culture with girls raised in a very different culture and this monogamy marriage thing is fucking DANGEROUS for them to chase on the whim of “just trust me bro, it’s the right thing to do, you’ll understand when you’re 55”. What if at 55 that guy ends up being scribblerg instead of you guys? ’cause all he knew about how to get there was “just trust me, build some self-control and it’ll all pay off”. That’s one step above “just be yourself and you’ll find the one” lol

So we’re poking at you guys to see what can guys learn from you besides “it’s awesome when you get to where we are, bro”? How can they GET to that stage? We’re not attacking you, we’d like you to share how and why you made the choices you did so we can discuss them and help guys look for alternatives with visible pros and cons and warnings and accounting for the 2016 divorce/open hypergamy culture etc instead of the feel-good “it’ll all work out, just keep playing that guitar” mysticism that a Softek will latch onto and rationalize staying with his girl or some other guy will use to justify his oneitis.

We GET that you guys are happy. But why and how can we get guys in 2016 to that same goal…if we even CAN in 2016’s culture.

“If he can clearly defend his position with his debate ideas he can strengthen his argument and it is clear that YaReally, Scray and Blax have done this.”

The internet has woken a lot of our generation and the next up. We KNOW 90% of the stuff fed to us by society is complete bullshit. So we’re starting to ask questions and the “eat your vegetables because it’s good for you” doesn’t satisfy us anymore because the same people who told us that told us “just be nice to her and she’ll fall in love with you” and “cops are your friend” and “you can trust a priest with your kid” and “just do the dishes for her and she’ll have more sex with you” and “just bring her flowers and be there for her and she’ll stop dating jerks and see you’re special” etc and all of that was bullshit. The internet pulled the curtains wide open so we can all see behind it.

So now we’ve got a generation who’s starting to ask “WHY are vegetables good for me? WHICH vegetables are the BEST ones to eat? What’s the most efficient vegetable to get the things I need from it to achieve my goals?” That’s why I can go to almost any dude who exercises at ALL and ask them nutrition questions and they’ll almost ALL know a bunch of shit about macros and protein percentages and shit instead of just trusting “lift heavy stuff and you’ll get bigger”. Maybe in the Blue Pill world they’ll still “fall” for that, and in the past it was more acceptable to just trust that society and your elders had your best interests at heart, but the guys dipping into the Red Pill want REAL answers.

So we’re trying to get some answers because hey, maybe you HAVE really GOOD reasons and maybe some of those reasons still apply and maybe we don’t have the right perspective, or maybe you just lucked out hardcore like a guy winning the lottery or maybe what you guys have is no longer realistic to shoot for in 2016 etc ’cause there may be stuff guys can learn from you that they can actually codify and apply. VS going to a gym and having a trainer say “just lift man, trust me, look how jacked *I* am, I did tons of lifting and look at me, so just get lifting” and blindly trusting that they’re going to manage to duplicate that guy’s results without having any idea why they’re doing what they’re doing or how.

@Blaximus
“If anybody pushes me, it’s Ya. He’s done it before, but I can’t help but fall for the banana in the tailpipe.”

I partly do it because I know you love questioning your own shit lol You know it benefits you to understand yourself better and these kinds of things aren’t questions you’ll ever ask yourself. But we have a greater purpose in mind, this is all being documented for future generations to learn from. Like it or not, you guys, by participating here, are role models and we are trying to coax out the secrets to your success (and to see if they can still be applied/executed these days with what we’re seeing infield with this new generation).

“I still don’t know if I can give them a real, true answer. It requires a lot of thought on my part. But I am thinking….”

We know that, that’s why we’re asking. πŸ˜‰ ’cause we know you haven’t had to really think about the why or the how. But to help current and future generations of men, those are the meat of the sandwich.

“Here’s the cool part. Almost as soon as I opened basketball girl one of her friends looks back at me, then her, sees basketball girl smiling, then turns back around AND LEAVES US ALONE.”

If I don’t want the basketball girl and I want her friend and catch that ioi, I’ll call the friend out on looking at us and being like “HEY, what are you lookin at?? Is this your girlfriend?” and bring her into our conversation so she can experience me interacting with both of them first-hand and because I have social approval of the basketball girl the transition to the friend is smooth as silk.

“Opened two other people who passed me. Getting much better about just opening FUCKING EVERYONE. Huge change from just a few days ago.”

I can’t wait for your first field report from a city full of your type of girls lol Eat nothing but instant noodles to save up for it if you have to, but get your ass to a city/location where you have more access to your type of girls ’cause you will slay it bringing this kind of vibe there. Your FRs are already full of way more solid social interaction than most newbies. Down the road when you DO get to a better location, you’ll realize that all this “talking to everyone” stuff helped you build parts of your skillset that a lot of guys who just zero in on the hot girls don’t develop and it’ll pay off in spades when you’re dominating the room and have your type of girls giving you puppydog eyes from the value you demonstrate everywhere you go.

You’re basically learning to BE game instead of just DO game. One of Julien’s big exercises for guys is to make them go out and tell them they CAN’T get numbers or lays that night, they’re not allowed to, but they have to stay in the bar for 4 hours. Or take them to a bar full of old/ugly people and make them stay there. The lesson being: what if we took away the outcome (sex), could you still have FUN and self-amuse and spread value, or do you just shut-down because you aren’t “getting” anything out of it (value-taking). So you’re starting OUT with those lessons because of your lack of your type of girls lol

Hell, the way you’re doing things you should drop into conversations that you’re hoping to find X (good-paying) job or move to Y city (a city you know has your type of girls), because you’re going to end up networking a lot and may run into people who, because you gave them value, drop stuff like that “hey that job opening is available, tell them Bob sent you” or “oh I got a buddy out there who runs a shop, lemme get your number and I’ll hook you up” etc that you can use to get yourself to a better position.

You’re also going to end up developing a lot of that “I feel like I’ve known you forever” stuff with the type of deep rapport you’re getting with people which will help you in general in life (not that your dick cares right now lol). I’m just mentioning this now so that in 5-10 years you’ll be like “man, YaReally was right!” lol

“Next time I do something with a employee, I am going to say NOTHING about the store and just act like we are in a bar lol. Just shoot the shit.”

Ya we call this breaking out of (or staying out of) the “customer frame”. Just treat them like a normal girl in a bar, don’t let her label you as a potential customer.

“I have an issue with doing game on girls outside of “fun” areas. Because socially, you aren’t supposed to do those sort of things there — like at a library. So I want to practice more of just ignoring social conventions a bit, so I can open girls in unusal places better.”

Right. This is extremely exteremely common and the solution is exactly what you said: just do it, break some social norms and teach your brain that it’s fine and learn to calibrate etc and you’ll be the guy that macks a girl in a library with everyone listening and gossiping and zero fucks given about the social pressure on your end because you’re getting what you want (the girl).

“Obviously, calibration is needed, but as you’ll see later, I don’t sexualize AT ALL outside of like a bar or whatever, and that’s an issue.”

Yup. Watch some Craig Ferguson flirting masterclass on YouTube, he’s got a great balance between sexual humor but not TOO over the top. Might give you some inspiration. Innuendo and misinterpretation and self-depreciation (“ya, that’s probably why I’m still a virgin :(” is one of my favorite go-to’s, you can drop that in to TONS of normal non-sexual conversation) are the easiest ways to lace sexual content in there. Even “that’s what SHE said” adds a little speck of sexuality VS just talking about puppydogs and ice cream. You don’t have to be like “hey, you sell hairbrushes, ever fuck yourself with one?” lol

Notice when you watch Craig he’ll cross the line INTO sexual talk/humor, but then cross back OUT of the line into normal talk. He’s not a horny dog humping her leg having to harp on sex in the first interaction in a store in the mall, but like, he shows that he CAN go there and isn’t afraid to.

“Chatted with couple next to me. Had a revelation. Cocky/funny/teasing almost INSTANTLY sucks girls in. Was funny, girl was more into me than guy lol.”

Attraction is not a choice. :) When you display good subcomms, she just instinctively gravitates toward your value.

““Can’t you just give them 18 years in prision if they act up?”

Girl said I wish, husband was like, wow, harsh. So I amplified

“Just say ‘What was that Jimmy? Did you just disrespect me? LIFE IN PRISON!”

Girl laugh, guys like jesus christ.

“Shit, if I was in charge I’d just be decapiating kids left and right. Game of Thrones shit.”

And almost immediately after, girl says

“Have you and I made out before?”

lol”

lol awesome. But look at the sequence of events. If you had apologized for being “rude” (aka fallen into the husband’s frame or social conditioning (his frame IS socially conditioned to say that’s harsh and be a Nice Guy)), you would have lost value. Because you just kept amplifying it into self-amused territory, she sees that you don’t cave to social pressure, especially not her husbands, so who has higher value you or him? And where does her brain go to? “I find this guy attractive, I wonder if we’ve made out” instead of “I find this guy interesting, I wonder if we’ve talked before”

“I sat down almost immediately. Getting faster at this. Pretty much I sit next to the person after the respond to my question. So its like 10 sec in, lol.”

If they look at ALL hesitant, throw in a False Time Constraint like that you’re just staying for one beer or whatever. But if they’re alone, most people enjoy the company…there’s a reason they aren’t drinking at home alone for much cheaper.

“Girls will get you to stand up or move out from behind a counter if they like you, so they can get closer to you”

Yup. They just know they need to get closer to the high-value.

“Anyway, girl is just standing close to me talking. Thank her for her info and shake her hand. She hold on to my hand. . .for. . .a.. .long time. And leans in. Lol. I have more sympathy for hot girls now, lol.”

lol I use the hand hold thing (lightly holding it so they can take it away at any point) as a compliance test to see if they pull it away or not. If they don’t I can pretty much laser and assume I’m in solid (pull them in toward me and put their arms up on my shoulders and mine on their waist etc).

Props in general dude. You’re doin great out there.

“If she decided she hates me over a text. . .well. . .I can’t really do anything.”

lol right. In person, no big deal, text is a little more 50/50. The worst thing you could do is txt her again apologizing tho, just let it ride like it’s absurd to you that someone would be offended by you fucking around lol You may bump into her again at a bar at some point and can smooth it over.

“So I need to get better with winning over the obstacles so rather than trying to get my target NOT to see me again, they are ENCOURAGING them to see me again”

Right, ideally the friends are an opportunity to have an instant wing-woman to HELP you VS an obstacle.

“Third, I just grabbed her number without clearly setting up what would happen”

Yep. Time Bridge that shit. Give this a watch and just watch how hard Julien solidifies the number and their plans. Over and over and over at different points in the interaction including the very end. He can’t pull her that night so he has to settle for a number, but he Time Bridges HARDCORE. It seems obnoxious and over the top but in this day and age that girl will get another 50 txts from other dudes orbiters Tinder etc by morning, so being a little over the top with it can help counter that.

“and its lets me get more of my personality go through — like I might have been able to salvage this Asian girl had I call her rather than texted her”

This.

@having a bad day
“generalizations are a tool of the FI/social conditioning… and one of the better ways to spot it.”

This lol That’s why it stands out to us. We’ve been pro-actively learning to NOT accept generalizations that don’t hold up consistently and can’t be explained, because that’s how we all got fucked up in the first place and that’s why our buddies are all fucked up and that’s why Softek won’t leave his girl etc

@Blaximus
See now THAT comment at 7:35pm is useful lol There’s content and personal examples in there that we can look at and deconstruct and codify into general rules to help make monogamy work, even if it doesn’t explain the WHY of choosing that over a variety, it’s still a glimpse into the HOW that makes your situation happier than the guys in /deadbedrooms/ and more useful than just “I’m happy, I have a happy life, I’m awesome, play the guitar and you’ll be awesome too” lol That’s finding out which vegetables to eat even if you aren’t sure why you should eat them yet. So there’s still deeper to dig, ’cause Scray’s original question was about the WHY more than the HOW, but personally I’m happy to see EITHER ’cause I know guys that will choose monogamy no matter WHAT ’cause they’re in too deep, and the HOW can help them not get burned lol

@redlight
“Regarding RDj and Evans what is the power dynamic at your work between two people, when one is making ten times the other?”

? What? Irrelevant really lol Have you never had a chodey boss or a boss you could tool or been more liked by your co-workers than your boss?

“Ya is going to remain a keyboard jockey about having and raising children, if he ever gets around to that topic”

I don’t disagree, that’s why I don’t give parenting advice. I have my theories on it and I’ve looked at other people’s ideas and experiences on it and I know how I’d go about it, but I’m not going to tell anyone how to raise their kids and if I do it would be with massive “THIS IS KEYBOARD THEORY” warnings.

“and the relationship dynamics that imposes”

Lots of people with kids have solid pLTR/oLTRs, personally I’m interested in studying how they get around the relationship dynamics that having kids impose more than how to make having kids work in monogamy.

“To me the first question is not monogamy or not, it’s children or not.”

The only reason I could imagine settling down into a relationship would be to have children, but even then there are enough examples of pLTR/oLTR relationships with kids that I think there’s an area that needs to be looked at, in order to give men an optimal endgame plan alternative to the traditional plan.


YaReally
on May 31st, 2016 at 10:05 pm
Original Link

@redlight
“What I’m a keyboard jockey about, among other things, is what impact having children will have on a pLTR/oLTR. I suspect the impact can be huge, perhaps to the point that the mother says all deals are off, either go exclusive or get divorced, and she could use your lifestyle against you when the FI decides your custody rights.”

That’s the THEORY. Like ya, in THEORY that’s what SHOULD happen. But we want evidence ’cause in THEORY being mean to girls shouldn’t turn them on, in THEORY doing housework for them should make them want to bang you, etc

In THEORY a pLTR shouldn’t even work in general, and I didn’t think it would, “no way would a girl be cool with it” until I started being open with my girls and gathered open/honest harem and pLTR experience and looked and talked to other guys doing the same and started understanding the dynamics of how to make it work and now it’s no big deal.

The problem is the successful oLTR/pLTR arrangements to learn from are the ones that aren’t advertised, which is a huge part of WHY they’re successful (see my archive for “Why monogamy is broken” about the nuances of keeping social pressure off the girl in pLTRs). Even Tyler is pretty hush hush about the details of his relationship because if he spills all the beans it’ll put a bunch of social judgement on his girl which fucks things up. Once you spill the beans and social pressure is applied to the girl you end up in a Gene Simmons situation.

So we have to kind of piece shit together from bits and pieces and watch what happens and analyze why some of them work and some of them don’t etc

I figure that’ll be a later chapter in my life to look at in depth and discuss when I’m closer to wanting kids and look into the subject deeper and we have more reference experiences gathered from current guys trying it out etc

@all
lol welcome to 2016 and a level of LITERALLY infinite abundance that the average girl has because of technology:

And check out what your texting competition is and why (in my opinion) texting is starting to be viewed as low-value:

https://twitter.com/extracashcathy/media

Check even mentions “Some men seem to want to keep messaging her back and forth for days before they ask her to dinner, which annoys her. But while conventionally she and her friends have always expected the men to put in the work to get the date, Smith said that no matter how many times the man might reach out to her to talk, the fact that it’s through online dating just makes it all seem lazy.”

Of course the hamster spins: “Yea, she’s really frustrated when guys try to feel her out, but the crazy thing is, here she says: “If I do not respond to your ONE message, I’m sorry. I’m an extremely busy girl. If you want to see me again, send a few texts. Better yet, come up with a plan” But she gets mad when they do send her lots of txt. lol”

And this is a good analysis:

“Its actually a refreshing read. I mean, her dating frustrations are absolutely a joy to witness. It is clear most guys are feeling her out, but since she’s trying to use them for dates she just rushes to whoever is desperate enough to jump at her beck and call. So she’s missing out on all the good guys and gets supremely frustrated that she’s not getting many second dates (cuz guys aren’t so dumb). Her most common frustration is guys no “planning” anything, but at the same time its obvious during the feeling out process she gives off really bad vibes. She has her friends do really creepy things like stalk the men and take their pictures, and she complains that she isn’t getting to know people, but admits she doesn’t respond to their messages. Her self destruction is refreshingly hilarious.”

There are tons of thirsty low-value guys available at a touch now, who are letting girls get away with putting zero effort in, so when the meet a guy who has standards they’re confused at having to qualify themselves (unless the guy has demonstrated a bunch of value) and just move on to the easier option, but the easier option is another thirsty low-value guy so they get jaded with “men” while the higher-value guys they’d want are looking for girls who put effort in.

Imagine the internals you have to be an average looking girl and have *31* guys buying you dinner and taking you on dates competing for you, in 31 days, and a bunch of these guys have money and looks etc and you care SO LITTLE about the outcome that you can just reject them all and give no fucks because you know you have endless opportunities. Like a Softek would KILL for 31 girls trying to touch his dick right now lol

Shit has changed out there. There’s a reason we’re looking for alternative plans to “find a nice average girl and be monogamous with her and have kids and expect her to stick around and raise them and be faithful to you” lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Original Link

Guys in this thread talking about how women are all sheep in a herd who can be programmed to think and act the same by social conditioning media etc that tells them to wear the same clothes and think/talk/act the same, when last thread women were all magically able to resist and reject social conditioning…how come you guys aren’t saying those girls are all just biologically involuntarily hardwired to wear uggs? I mean every girl in that pic is dressed the same so that’s proof that it’s involuntarily hardwired into them otherwise we wouldn’t see such a common trend!

…or it might be that no one has any investment in believing uggs are hardwired. lol

@redlight @quixotic
“And my experience matches his, women often come in bursts”

“I’ve always wondered about this, if there is a chemical/biological/pheromones thing, to the point if you went to a whore, and next day to a bar you would be more likely to score. Maybe it’s pressing too hard when nothing is going on, but still it’s like women have a sixth sense for getting into the competition for popular sperm.”

It’s subcomms not some unpredictable magic pheromone sixth sense woowoo shit lol When you’re getting laid your subcomms are more chill/non-needy/etc and you give less of a fuck about the outcome of your interactions with women (which again makes your subcomms more solid).

End result is attraction. Then shit happens in real life (you get lazy, real life problems come up, girls cause drama, whatever) and your subcomms get fucked up ’cause you got shit on your mind and your subcomms end up all over the map. Like say one of your girls moves away, now you wanna replace her because you don’t have that Tuesday fuck lined up anymore so you go on the hunt but you’re a little more outcome dependent, which gets you rejected, then you’re struggling to prove to yourself that you’re still a pimp by trying to get a good reaction but that all just loops on top of itself with more and more outcome dependence and boom, dry spell till you chill the fuck out and start enjoying the game again.

“Where I do really agree with you is here: If you are in a rut/haven’t gotten laid in a long time – GO DUMPSTER DIVING”

Only prob there is if the girl is below your personal threshold for what you can respect yourself banging, you’ll end up with shittier subcomms afterward ’cause you’ll resent yourself for banging her and feel gross/dirty and then you end up going out trying to prove to yourself that you deserve better than that girl and here we are back in outcome dependence and shitty subcomms lol

@quixotic
Good Field Report on the other benefits of sarging. The angry guy you talked into hugging you and offering you his place to crash etc is a good example of what I do out there. People think oh that guy is going to smash your face in cuz he’s angry and does MMA BRO!!!!11111 but not only can you use your rapport/comfort shit to lead a guy like that into chilling out and even cheering him up, but when you know what you’re doing you can even talk shit to a guy like that and make fun of his crooked nose and he’ll lol along with you about it and like you MORE for it (because you only do that once you’ve crossed the hook point threshold where he views you two as having a bond, and it’s okay for a buddy with a bond to make fun of his nose…this is all calibration, don’t go trying this shit randomly as a newbie lol).

It looks like magic but it’s just understanding psychology, holding a strong frame (that violence isn’t going to happen), and pacing then leading their reality.

@scray @Andy
“when you go out enough to start recognizing the clear differences between PUAs and a lot of TRP/manosphere guys….”

lol this.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Original Link

Guys in this thread talking about how women are all sheep in a herd who can be programmed to think and act the same by social conditioning media etc that tells them to wear the same clothes and think/talk/act the same, when last thread women were all magically able to resist and reject social conditioning…how come you guys aren’t saying those girls are all just biologically involuntarily hardwired to wear uggs? I mean every girl in that pic is dressed the same so that’s proof that it’s involuntarily hardwired into them otherwise we wouldn’t see such a common trend!

…or it might be that no one has any investment in believing uggs are hardwired. lol

@redlight @quixotic
“And my experience matches his, women often come in bursts”

“I’ve always wondered about this, if there is a chemical/biological/pheromones thing, to the point if you went to a whore, and next day to a bar you would be more likely to score. Maybe it’s pressing too hard when nothing is going on, but still it’s like women have a sixth sense for getting into the competition for popular sperm.”

It’s subcomms not some unpredictable magic pheromone sixth sense woowoo shit lol When you’re getting laid your subcomms are more chill/non-needy/etc and you give less of a fuck about the outcome of your interactions with women (which again makes your subcomms more solid).

End result is attraction. Then shit happens in real life (you get lazy, real life problems come up, girls cause drama, whatever) and your subcomms get fucked up ’cause you got shit on your mind and your subcomms end up all over the map. Like say one of your girls moves away, now you wanna replace her because you don’t have that Tuesday fuck lined up anymore so you go on the hunt but you’re a little more outcome dependent, which gets you rejected, then you’re struggling to prove to yourself that you’re still a pimp by trying to get a good reaction but that all just loops on top of itself with more and more outcome dependence and boom, dry spell till you chill the fuck out and start enjoying the game again.

“Where I do really agree with you is here: If you are in a rut/haven’t gotten laid in a long time – GO DUMPSTER DIVING”

Only prob there is if the girl is below your personal threshold for what you can respect yourself banging, you’ll end up with shittier subcomms afterward ’cause you’ll resent yourself for banging her and feel gross/dirty and then you end up going out trying to prove to yourself that you deserve better than that girl and here we are back in outcome dependence and shitty subcomms lol

@quixotic
Good Field Report on the other benefits of sarging. The angry guy you talked into hugging you and offering you his place to crash etc is a good example of what I do out there. People think oh that guy is going to smash your face in cuz he’s angry and does MMA BRO!!!!11111 but not only can you use your rapport/comfort shit to lead a guy like that into chilling out and even cheering him up, but when you know what you’re doing you can even talk shit to a guy like that and make fun of his crooked nose and he’ll lol along with you about it and like you MORE for it (because you only do that once you’ve crossed the hook point threshold where he views you two as having a bond, and it’s okay for a buddy with a bond to make fun of his nose…this is all calibration, don’t go trying this shit randomly as a newbie lol).

It looks like magic but it’s just understanding psychology, holding a strong frame (that violence isn’t going to happen), and pacing then leading their reality.

@scray @Andy
“when you go out enough to start recognizing the clear differences between PUAs and a lot of TRP/manosphere guys….”

lol this.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus
Blue guy squared up and participated in the monkey dance, he had the frame of “violence is a definite possibility”:

@Sentient
“You cant just pick and choose what evo psych you want to follow. It all holds together or it doesn’t.”

Evo-psych is great. I fully subscribe to the idea that women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to things that indicate 100% always attractive traits.

The difference in what I’m saying is in WHAT those consistent 100% always attractive core diamond traits ARE, because we have tons of evidence that looks aren’t consistently attractive whereas confidence, preselection, etc are ALWAYS attractive. In a society that programs the fish to believe that muscles are attractive, women’s brains calculate that a guy who has muscles must also have preselection, unless he does stuff to counter that (bad subcomms).

Nothing I’m saying goes against evo-psych (assuming evo-psych says that what’s attractive are traits that indicate a high % chance of survival/replication, not muscles or money themselves being attractive specifically (ie – in a society that doesn’t require money, you having money no longer has value to the girl)). You guys are just shooting arrows at the tree holding up the bulls-eye is all lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus
Blue guy squared up and participated in the monkey dance, he had the frame of “violence is a definite possibility”:

@Sentient
“You cant just pick and choose what evo psych you want to follow. It all holds together or it doesn’t.”

Evo-psych is great. I fully subscribe to the idea that women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to things that indicate 100% always attractive traits.

The difference in what I’m saying is in WHAT those consistent 100% always attractive core diamond traits ARE, because we have tons of evidence that looks aren’t consistently attractive whereas confidence, preselection, etc are ALWAYS attractive. In a society that programs the fish to believe that muscles are attractive, women’s brains calculate that a guy who has muscles must also have preselection, unless he does stuff to counter that (bad subcomms).

Nothing I’m saying goes against evo-psych (assuming evo-psych says that what’s attractive are traits that indicate a high % chance of survival/replication, not muscles or money themselves being attractive specifically (ie – in a society that doesn’t require money, you having money no longer has value to the girl)). You guys are just shooting arrows at the tree holding up the bulls-eye is all lol


YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus
“Women pretty much have a herd mentality. Lol, I’ve spent the bulk of my life surrounded by them from birth.”

Agreed. Like I say, women ping off their environment. What you feel, she feels. Strongest frame wins. etc etc

“Social conditioning has it’s effect on people, but there is sometimes a deeper programming that drives behavior.”

Agreed. Social conditioning says “muscles mean the guy is more likely to have the ACTUAL attractive diamond core traits that are attractive 100% of the time”, but their hard-wiring says “that skinny Russell Brand guy over there, when he dominates the room, is sexy as fuck, that little David Shade, when he passes my shit-tests, makes me want to make out with him even though I kind of hate him for it” etc etc

“If social conditioning was a definitive thing, why don’t ” nice guys ” have eternal success? Society preaches the Nice Guy ideal. Lol.”

Because Nice Guys have fucked up subcomms and everything ABOUT being a Nice Guy is about making guys do things that are decidedly the OPPOSITE of those diamond core attractive traits. Don’t be loud, don’t offend anyone, always agree with the girl, supplicate, let her lead, don’t talk to other women, don’t have opinions, don’t make her upset, etc etc

To go back to the cake with sugar analogy: sugar is subcomms (the thing that always tastes good) but the recipe society is handing men is a cake not just with no sugar but with salt instead of sugar, so their cake tastes shitty to girls. Girls think and talk like they want a cake with no sugar, but those cakes turn out to be bland and boring or be made with salt. Social conditioning says “a cake with blue frosting has the most sugar!” so girls choose the cake with blue frosting over the one with no frosting, but it’s the sugar they’re after, not the frosting itself because whenever that blue frosting turns out to be made with salt, they don’t want that cake anymore. If the cake itself were what they wanted, they would eat it regardless of how much sugar/salt is in it.

…I’m fully aware that I’m using a cake baking analogy with a guy who boxes and slung wrenches and shit around his whole life. lol

“Imo, all men should learn to recognize what part of them has been socially conditioned ( many men accept the conditioning and can’t shake it…to their owb detriment ) and excise it from their psyche.”

Agreed. Including the looks matter stuff.

@quixotic
“I should have clarified that my dumpster diving comment was meant for guys who are at the very bottom starting their game journey, hard cases who feel like there is no hope.”

Right, I can’t ENTIRELY disagree with the initial dumpster dive because when you have literally ZERO success with any women at all, I mean, even a 4 showing you some ioi’s can feel pretty good. But the two big pitfalls to watch out for are 1) aiming TOO low and lowering your self-esteem from it (“I was right this IS all I deserve”) and 2) the Softek Trap where you end up banging a girl way below your ACTUAL status/potential (because you don’t realize you have value yet) and you end up staying with her because she’s the only girl who’s ever shown interest in you and she becomes an excuse to NOT go out and approach better.

@Forge
“Any suggestions for a good movie to put on if I need it? She’s not sappy or a blushing violet, but is a kinda good-girl responsible type.”

Something boring as fuck lol or with sexual humor. Judd Apatow flicks are usually good for that. Just make sure when you sit on the couch if she sits away from you, you immediately go “Nope. That’s how I watch movies with guy-friends. Come.” and raise your arm for her to cuddle up to you (she’ll curl right up happy that you did that because she just needed it to not be her “fault” (ASD/accountability/etc)).


YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 7:40 pm
Original Link

@Sentient
“And yet we have the IOI, and the puzzling “free” IOI… And RAS drifting back to better looking guys in set unless something is done…”

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity

Appeal to Complexity. You’re being deliberately obtuse. Those situations have been explained repeatedly:

IOIs happen because she’s been socially conditioned to believe that the cake (muscles) is more likely to contain sugar (high-value traits). If the guy hasn’t done anything to indicate otherwise (like demonstrate bad subcomms), then yes, her RAS will drift back to the better looking guy because at that point she assumes, based on her social conditioning, that he is the cake with sugar in it.

If he does anything to demonstrate bad subcomms (like HAVE them), he is classified as “a waste of good genetics” and removed from her RAS for either another good-looking guy (who her social conditioning has told her is a cake more likely to have sugar in it), or whatever guy is demonstrating good subcomms (Tyler being an ugly cake but radiating that he’s full of sugar).

It’s very simple, and very consistent, and even follows evo-psych, unless you purposely try to MAKE it complex so you can pull the “NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS LET’S NOT BRING IT UP!!!” card lol

“Nothing qualitative is 100p. Especially a bromide. In other words we all strike out. Julien, Tyler etc.”

Yes, they strike out when they’re fucking up the diamond core concepts and their subcomms are off (like giving off outcome dependence as we were talking about in this thread, or letting the girl shake their frame etc).

It doesn’t mean they’re going to get the girl 100% of the time, because they can drop the ball all over the place, but when those diamond core attractive traits are demonstrated to the girl in person, she feels attraction because she’s hardwired to. That’s why jealousy plotlines, merging sets forward, using girls as pivots, etc work.

End of the day I can show you a SHITLOAD of good-looking muscular dudes who girls don’t want to fuck. And I can show you a shitload of guys who aren’t good-looking that get attraction/makeouts/laid.

I have tons of evidence to support my position.

Show me a videos where a girl is turned off by confident eye-contact or a guy being the top alpha of a group of men, because “nothing is 100p”. :)

@SJF
“I’m sure YaReally has the best time ever hanging out with his sarging buddies.”

Ya we have a blast. And part of it is what Rollo’s talking about…we aren’t just going out to “have a beer”. We’re going out with goals in mind, whether it’s get ourselves laid, pull a 2-set together, get our buddies laid, push our personal comfort zones, explore some new boundaries or techniques, practice internalizing certain habits infield, working specific types of sets, practicing wingman tactics, etc etc

People bond over sharing emotional impact. Like Julien’s analogy: if you and I were to be dropped in the middle of the jungle and the only thing we can’t do is talk about ourselves, no resume list of information about ourselves or our hobbies or life or history or anything, all we can do is talk about the present moment and the adventure we’re in the middle of as we try to get back to civilization. We run from a lion together, I stumble off a cliff and you catch me by the forearm and pull me up, etc etc and we make it back to civilization alive…we will basically be BFFs for life. Even though we don’t know anything about eachother.

Sarging, as guys like scribblerg who’s having it shoved in your face right now can tell you, is about putting yourself through some of the most intense emotional rollercoaster rides you’ll ever go on. So when you go out “picking up girls” with buddies, if you’re doing it the PUA way where you’re not just getting wasted and “partying” and passively hitting on whatever 6s happen to open you (hi, RVF!), but actually pro-actively pushing your comfort zones and stepping up to do shit that scares you or fix sticking points that have been holding you back, whether you get blown out and take crushing blows to your ego or whether you succeed and triumph over your limiting beliefs, either way you’re going through some intense emotional experiences with your buddies.

I’ve had a few EXTREMELY good buddies that I had literally NOTHING in common with except that we chased girls around together lol Like, outside of that we had NOTHING in common. But we were bonding over sharing all that emotional impact we were going through when we sarged together.

That’s why the RVF meetup was dumb. ’cause those guys aren’t actually going out to approach girls. They’ve made an identity out of thinking they’re these guys:

Who are too COOL to approach or actually pro-actively do anything to get laid. So their meetup is just “I banged a hooker in thailand that looks just like that girl over there” “oh one of us should approach her” “lemme tell you about thailand man…” and nobody does anything. I’ve read their group meetup Field Reports and it’s the same shit every time lol Because they’re too busy hating on PUA to learn from it. So even if they DO approach it’s awkward and uncalibrated and they just write it off as “oh those dumb slut lizards were probably drunk” and “then I took home this 5 for laughs” Sure you did, for the “laughs”. lol

I would never attend an RVF meetup because I know from the FRs that it’s just a bunch of sausage wearing their best suits sitting around a table talking about travel, business, “bitches”, etc and claiming it’s because they’re so advanced that they don’t care about poon or have to be “obsessed” with it like those PUAs, but secretly they’re doing that all to avoid approaching and risking getting shot down in front of eachother. If I held a meetup no one would be allowed to sit down until they’ve opened 3 girls, regardless of whether they got shot down or not, regardless of if they’re married or not, regardless of if the girls are even hot or not. It would be a mandatory requirement…you wanna talk around a table? Talk about the 3 sets you just ran and how they went and how you could do better and help your buddies figure out how they could do better.

To be clear, I’ve also got male friends I don’t do pickup with and who aren’t a part of that world at ALL (and are fully Blue Pill’ed, some settled down with kids etc). But right now at the point in my life where I’m working on self-development, my buddies who are into overall self-development/pickup are more relatable and offer more value because they aren’t sitting around watching Game of Thrones, they’re out working on their personal goals (even outside of pickup) and we support and motivate eachother.

That’s why I push everyone to go out in my posts and remind you guys the weekend is coming up and shit. ’cause you need to go through the emotional experiences that the field will push you through. You can take any random dude in the bar and throw a girl at him and become close buds just from going through a night of talking to girls together. A lot of my early wingmen I met infield…I’d chat up dudes that were there solo ’cause I knew they were scared shitless like I was, and then just grab random girls and try to get them to stop and talk to the other guy and we’d both start to loosen up and end up running a few sets together and then just be like “we should do this again” and boom, new buddy to hit the bars with. Didn’t matter who they were or where they came from or what they did for a living, we had one major thing in common and it was a thing that forced us to “Do”, so we bonded fast.

This is also why I don’t hang out with girls often outside of sex. There’s very little value I’m going to get from a girl day to day. Most girls aren’t into self-development (except the surface level where they pretend to be because it makes them sound ambitious but they don’t actually try to fix anything in their life) and can’t relate to how men view careers (since they always have a safety net of being able to flirt with beta chodes to pay their rent) and can’t relate to the burden of performance of men etc and they generally just want to just sit around and watch mindless Netflix or just go eat out (wasting money on unhealthy food) or go on road trips and little vacations for no real reason besides them not being able to find fun and adventure and appreciation for the stuff they have immediately around them.

Give a male buddy and myself a ball for the day and we’ll FIND ways to make that entertaining. Give a couple girls one and they’ll passively say “well what’s it supposed to DO for me?” and then get bored and want to check their social media for something more stimulating…dogs VS cats lol

Personally I think guys should aim for having a group of close general “life” buddies that are just sort of there in the background through your life, a group of close “mission” buddies who are on the same mission/purpose/path as you in that stage of your life, and keep girls for primarily just sex. Rely on your buddies for emotional support, having your back unconditionally, venting your problems and frustrations and fears, and don’t drop that shit on your girl who will pretend to want to hear about it but ultimately 1) won’t be able to help you solve anything and 2) will end up losing attraction for you because you are a whiny bitch lol


YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 7:54 pm
Original Link

@SJF
Also to quote Todd:

“What I loved about the oldschool pickup days is there was this air of experimentation, everyone was trying ANYTHING, there was this idea of “everything MUST be field tested”. I field tested doing a sommersault up to a girl, standing up and opening…which is retarded, but we field tested it. We were always trying new things, always experimenting and trying to optimize every little bit. And NOTHING was too crazy to try.”

And one of my favorite stories about trying stupid shit in-field at 4:00 in this vid:

It’s almost impossible to go through doing retarded shit like this with your buddies, that completely fucks with your egos, and NOT come out with a strong bond. Same shit as Fraternities making pledges do stupid shit to bond with the group…except it involves interacting with girls and you eventually stumble across stuff infield that makes you go “wait that SHOULDN’T work…why does that work??” (like Julien calling girls “DOG!!!” as an opener, or Tyler making out with girls without saying anything not even opening with words etc) which force you (and the community when you report it and guys go field-test it) to analyze and drill deeper to find out what makes it work and how to make it consistently work and why, which is how we got to subcomms.

@redlight
“Could Rollo explain why I, and him too, having married, are having sex with only one woman while expending much of our resources as possible?”

pLTR is the future! Soon as guys as a whole realize it’s even an option for them and decide to shake off their social conditioning and try it. lol


YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Original Link

“Where three of them would cite confidence as the most desirable trait, another would state she was perfectly confident herself and liked shy men as a result. Where every woman stated traits that fell into the aforementioned patterns, they would also state traits unique to them, which were equally fundamental but fell into no pattern – for example; creativity, competitiveness, persuasiveness, intellectually challenging, philosophical or, enjoys video games and / or comic books.”

The reason this part happens is because girls are picturing their ideal man that’s WAY out of their league value-wise, and thinking “how would I want THAT guy to be, for me to feel like I deserve him?” and so they say stuff like “I want him to be shy” when in reality she’s surrounded by thousands of guys that are shy and that shyness is unattractive to them…but she wants the high-value guy she’s picturing in her head to be shy so that she feels like she belongs with him. Same with the personal interests unique to her. Full solipsism, and why we ignore self-surveys.

“I asked the women a simple question ‘what are the fundamental characteristics of the attractive man?’. All of them without exception assumed this referred to a long term partner. Not a single one assumed I was referring to a short term hook up. In fact, that was scarcely mentioned, and when it was, the only correlated trait was height (the importance of which was greatly outweighed by the aforementioned traits).”

lol…aka “I had a conclusion these stupid girls were supposed to prove but the results I got didn’t fit my socially conditioned paradigm, so I’ve decided to create a new category filled with socially conditioned beliefs that looks, height, muscles, etc matter for a short-term fling and toss out all their answers and just fill them in myself for the girls which was really the whole point of this article in the first place”.

Bro-science at it’s worst, toss it out.

If we DIDN’T throw it out though, it’s funny how much the things the girls said align with what Mystery said:

1) Pre-selection – either having real women around you at all times or conveying that you have women in your life via stories
2) Leader of men – the ability to lead other men and groups to achieve a goal
3) Protector of loved ones – the ability to protect those you care for, which is also related to how you control and attain power
4) Ability and willingness to emote – to feel the right emotions of protection correctly given tough situations
5) Having a purpose greater than oneself – being passionate about a cause or entity that is great than the individual

But we toss the guy’s article because it’s a self-survey data. The ones Mystery wrote came from the field, not rigged self-surveys, even if it aligns with what they said. Broken clock is right twice a day and all that.

Mystery Method was designed to get girls to fall in love long-term. Short-term the only real difference is establishing yourself as a Lover instead of a Provider, which has nothing to do with having height/looks/money. Just demonstrating that you’re not going to be a Provider (aka the ABSENCE of money can help more than HAVING money, ask any rich dude who’s had a girl DTF until he pulls her in his fancy car to his fancy condo and she suddenly plays the “you have to date me to get this pussy” game because she’s realized he’s a good potential Provider).


YaReally
on May 16th, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Original Link

Sorry, that was to @rugby about that article


YaReally
on May 17th, 2016 at 4:24 am
Original Link

@Rollo
You got a name-drop on TL;DR’s interview with a MGTOW at 6:35 and they briefly talk about Hypergamy at 45:00:

32k views, TL;DR is part of the anti-feminsm crew (Sargon, Shoe, etc). Could reach a good handful of new receptive ears getting on there to discuss Hypergamy or solipsism or whatever. If you don’t do it the MGTOW and Roosh are gonna lol

Seems like either the anti-feminism crew is taking an interest in MGTOW or MGTOW have decided to start coming out of their shell to engage people in discussion ’cause I’m seeing a lot more “interview with a MGTOW” vids these days as people try to understand wtf their movement is about. I don’t think there’s much incentive to interview PUAs because their idea of a PUA is Roosh and everyone “knows” PUA is just scam-artists tricking helpless men into learning to manipulate women and it totally doesn’t work etc so there’s no real story there VS the mysterious men who’ve just checked out of society completely.

The actual interview is a lot of analysis by two guys who don’t understand attraction and why online dating stats are silly (they remove subcomms and face to face interaction from the equation, which reduces things to basically a looks/stats-based comparison which has no real relevance infield (just like if I don’t tell you which cakes have the tastiest amount of sugar and which have too little or have salt instead of sugar, you’ll just pick the best looking one that social conditioning has told you is the most likely to contain the most sugar) so I don’t really recommend listening to this particular interview but TL;DR’s stuff in general is good background noise.

@rugby
“Making a movie is leadership…”

Yup. But remember: so is just being the manager of a McDonald’s. Or telling another guy “look after this girl for a second, I’ll be right back” in front of the girl. Or even just telling a story to a male buddy with him listening to you and showing interest in what you’re saying. Or leading your buddy when you walk to another part of the venue. It all gets picked up somewhere in the back of girls hindbrains, it doesn’t have to be as fancy as making blockbuster movies lol


YaReally
on May 17th, 2016 at 6:31 am
Original Link

@blogster
“I’ve had this happen 3-4 times in the last year or so.”

lol ya, guys don’t believe me when I say this happens. It doesn’t happen to me ’cause I’m a bum, but I have rich buddies and Tyler talks about getting these guys on bootcamps all the time. TOO good a catch and whoops, they get put on the Provider slow-track ’cause the girl doesn’t want to seem like a pump & dump candidate.

“In the city I live, I live in a very exclusive area in a very exclusive building; women visibly get excited when they find out I live where I do (think A list movie stars, rich radio shock jocks etc).”

Don’t give us any more details, protect your anonymity.

“Also at times it can be unavoidable. I have the physique of a PT so I have been thinking of pretending to be one in the initial phases, but this is not ideal. Any advice?”

If you can afford it, get a shitty little studio somewhere near where you do your Day2’s (presumably some nightlife district with cheap bars you can take them to), or focus on going to their place to bang the first time (which can be hit or miss, a lot of girls live with their parents or roommates these days as they rack up student loan debt hoping a well-off guy like you will come along and be the sucker that bails them out when they’re done with the cock carousel lol). Or get a cheap hotel room (either ahead of time or when you’re with the girl, say your place is being renovated etc). Try to avoid dropping money on drinks, make her pay half for the bill, don’t pick her up in a nice car or anything, etc. Basically treat her how a dude with average means would actually treat her.

Basically don’t reveal your wealth. Lie about your job, your real name, have a fake email address, ideally a second phone incase she googles your number when she does her google snoop and it comes up, make your facebook private (“it’s only for my family members sorry”) etc. Down the road if you like and trust the girl and she’s still in that New Relationship Energy stage where she’s in love with you, you can tell her “so btw…” and fill her in and just say you had to deal with crazy stalkers and golddiggers and shit so you don’t tell girls your real info but she’s impressed you and earned your trust with your secret etc etc Should be zero reprocussions whatsoever so don’t worry about that lol

If I had a good physique I would just say my job is something that involves physical labor and makes average money. Girls don’t really know what goes into getting a good body, you could say you did construction for a year and your body is just the result of that and they’ll probably believe it lol Or say you work in an industry that requires a good physique. Freelance PT is actually decent because you don’t have to say you’re with a gym or anything, you just go help cougars get back in shape after their divorces. Just make shit up, girls don’t care and won’t look deep into it until they fall for you and presumably by then you’ve fucked them and can decide what to actually tell them (or not, most of the girls I’m with, even the ones I like, have no idea what my actual name is or what I actually do for a living lol)

This is kind of the irony of working hard to achieve the looks and money. Shit throws you into a Provider slot by default and then you have to either dig your way out dealing with hassles that a bum like me doesn’t have to deal with (the ONLY reason a girl would hang out with me is for the sex because I clearly can’t offer anything else), or you end up having to hide your wealth and ACT like a bum like me and it’s like, well shit what was all that work for?? (jk, tons of personal/life benefits to having money, I just mean in terms of getting laid it can end up being something you don’t even get to use to make things easier in the end)


YaReally
on May 17th, 2016 at 6:50 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“Obtuse? Girls are attracted to cake… Simple and direct statement.”

Except that they’re not. Show me the lineup of girls that wants to fuck this guy:

I see muscles, so that’s a “cake”. If “girls are attracted to cake” is accurate, then girls are getting soaking wet for this dude. But they aren’t. So “girls are SOMETIMES attracted to cake, and sometimes NOT attracted” is more accurate.

And when you don’t have a consistent result, you have to drill deeper to find the consistent rule.

“The underlying reason doesn’t even matter (hard wired or socially conditioned) because the net result is the same – attraction to cake.”

It DOES matter. Because the result is NOT the same and you are painting something that gets inconsistent results as something that gets consistent results which is inaccurate and creates blind spots in the knowledge-base of how psychology/attraction work. It’s like thinking 2 + 2 = 5 and finding out that a lot of times 2 + 2 = 4 and then going “oh well, I don’t want to deal with that or rexamine the formula because I’m lazy, so let’s just say 2 + 2 = 5 and base all our math calculations and rocket science classes off that inaccurate premise that we have tons of evidence that goes against it.”

When you have an inconsistent result, you have to drill deeper to find out WHY it’s inconsistent. If you drill deeper, you get to the ingredients in the cake and you find the amount of sugar (subcomms). It’s not the cake itself that’s attractive, it’s that the cake is likely to contain more sugar because social conditioning said it would.

Bunch of examples and questions your theory can’t answer here:

https://therationalmale.com/2016/05/06/good-girls-bad-girls/comment-page-9/#comment-156194


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 17th, 2016 at 9:43 am
Original Link

@fleezer
You are my favorite poster ever lol

I’ve had some <20s and popped a few cherries and wasn't impressed. Was the same as fucking the hideous old hag 20-25yos except they didn't know how to fuck well and got clingy as fuck after lol But I don't have the same mystical woo-woo guys like you have for it. "THE TREASURED HOLY VIRGIN VAGINA!!!! IT GLOWS WITH ITS MYSTICAL POWERS!!!" lol

No idea wtf you're talking about with Thrill of the Hunt and sugar. Have you been following the conversation? We're talking about women seeking men not men seeking women. CAKE MEANS DUDES. I thought you were a world-class genius man lol

"claim: girls that frequent night clubs/bars/etc are the most valuable and therefore represent the target to which men should calibrate"

No one has ever claimed this you strawmanning sperglord lol We just send guys to clubs because there's a shitload of girls to practice on, dolled up to intimidating levels looks-wise (VS wearing a hoodie and minimal makeup on a Sunday afternoon).

No idea wtf the rest of your post is about but tell us more of these unicorns. Why, I'll bet game doesn't even work on them because they aren't slutty drunk whores! lol Never stop posting man.

@having a bad day
"@Rollo – i think this is where you are conflating the ‘muscles = higher genetic fitness’ idea…bc certainly in times before machines, muscles were a huge advantage in survival…and there certainly might be some kind of residual preference for that"

This. But also there's no push AWAY from this idea. We have YEARS of Hollywood and mainstream media pushing the jacked is better stuff. Same way you think of Coca-Cola or McDonald's. It would take a massive active push for many more years than we'll be around, to replace Coca-Cola or McDonald's and make people forget about them and be AS drawn to them as they are to some other unheard of brands. Are Coca-Cola and McDonald's objectively the BEST drink/food? Fuuuuuck no. But social conditioning gives us that warm fuzzy feeling in our tummy when we see a Coke sign or the golden arches if we were brought up to view those as high-value treats.

@IAS
"Genuine question: are girls really not attracted to flamboyant gay dudes, or they are but know they have no chance because he is gay?"

There's the "convert a gay guy" ego-trip thing but I wouldn't necessarily call that sexual attraction, more a validation chase. Hard to say, but I can't imagine girls are watching that drag queen reality show with their pants down jilling off lol What's the deal with all the bisexual chicks or girls into girl on girl shit if they want muscles? How does that fit into the paradigm? Just another question to toss to the "muscles make girls nipples hard and their pussies moist" crowd that they won't answer lol

"Also note that some of you have written yourselves that some of these flamboyant gay dudes have *rock hard frames*. Strong frames are also attractive to women."

Strong MASCULINE frames. I mean, white knights have ROCK SOLID frames that their white knighting is "right" and "attractive" but it's not. A beta chode with no self-esteem has a ROCK SOLID frame that he's a worthless loser who doesn't deserve girls, THAT'S not attractive even though he's 100% adamant about it. A male feminist is 100% SUPER DUPER ROCK SOLID in his belief system and view of the world, but that's not attractive except maybe to Trigglypuff lol (a guy like Hugo Schwyzer had a bunch of other shit going for him (like situational confidence/dominance leading a classroom of impressionable young chicks, probably had decent subcomms, confidence, competence knowing what he was doing was going to work (assuming attraction/success))

So it's not just ANY frame. A gay dude's frame is too feminine and his subcomms are such a massive attraction-tank that girls might like a PICTURE of this guy, and he does have a strong frame…but, well, play the video for some of your chick friends and see how hard their nipples get and how wet they soak their panties watching this:

The funniest part is that that drag queen dude who's owning it in his beard and dress, and this guy singing, girls in real life would probably run up to them touching them saying "omg you're amazing I love you!!" and demanding pics with them and wanting to hang out etc…bunch of free gimme IOIs. But is any of that actually sexual attraction? Are they soaking wet when they go "OMG I love her!!!" about some drag queen snapping her fingers all "fierce"? Not really. And those IOIs are triggered more by their frame/congruence TO their feminine frames, than the muscles themselves because they'll ignore the jacked gay guy who's a shy wallflower in a corner and insecure/nervous and they'll love the skinny flamboyant gay guy who's got the same "owning it" congruent frame too etc etc

That all said, "masculine" is up for interpretation. Something like being a Tetris or Warcraft master isn't going to kill attraction. If you're passionate about it and display mastery especially in competition, you're triggering good shit. Add a bit of masculinity to your frame and basic game and in person you'll suddenly find a bunch of girls LOVE Tetris and qualify themselves to you about how they loved playing it as a kid etc as they seek commonalities.

I mean Furious is a Warcraft nerd, and he's putting on a character schtick here with an insanely strong frame, but note that the shtick is super alpha/masculine/confident/etc:

He used to have a bunch of great videos up with him speaking in Warcraft Orcish to girls and stealing shit out of their purses as he talked to them etc it was great but they've been taken down. The dude is just a super normal guy behind the schtick (with some great videos on philosophy/internals/spreading value/etc), just like this guy is a schtick:

Actually, this is a good example. Do you (@Rollo, @Sentient, etc) think the character he puts on gets more or less attraction than at 33 seconds in when it's revealed that he's just a generic Nice Guy with some nervous mannerisms. Look at the comment section, everyone is just like "what the fuck????" because his broscience personality is alpha as fuck and would have girls laughing and loving him and attracted, but the normal version of him is just "a dude" with average subcomms.

Show any girl you know a dozen vids of him in his Dom character and they'll probably love him and his uber-alpha frame, but then show that same girl this video, especially 2:30 where Dom has the gayest body language ever, and see if they're still as attracted. Nothing has changed on the guy, exact same dude, just a different set of subcomms.

@redlight @blogster
"You are just a house sitter (condo sitter) who does it since you can’t afford to rent anything decent yourself. You signed a non-disclosure agreement so you can’t reveal who lives there when they are not off filming or touring."

This is beautiful. Bravo. Also do the safe thing. I hide my wallet/id/etc when I have girls over juuuust incase.

"I think a much easier solution is to just disqualify yourself by saying, “this is my friend’s place, he’s out of town and I’m crashing here for the week/weekend’, or “Hey, this is my buddy’s place he’s never in town and he’s renting it out to me super cheap.”"

This works too but isn't as funny as house-sitting for an A-celeb lol


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 2:14 am
Original Link

Part 1:

@Sentient
“If you change vids to pics you think the girls won’t be looking at him? he won’t get the “free” IOI?”

So basically “if you remove his negative subcomms, the girl will ASSUME he has the positive subcomms that society has told her a muscular dude is likely to have”? Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. It’s the subcomms that are attractive. If society told women that guys in fedoras were likely to have the actual attractive subcomms they’re looking for, then you could throw a fedora on him in a pic and they’d love it even MORE. But it’s not that cylindrical arrangements of fabric make women’s nipples hard and their pussy wet, it’s what that fedora signifies due to her social conditioning (back to the flat square head shit), and, in acknolwedging that, you acknowledge that those standards can be modified/changed over time (again shaved face in the 40s signifying that you have high-value VS having a beard etc which is hot NOW but would’ve meant you don’t have a stable office job etc back then).

@scray
“how is 17 better?”

When you’re insecure, knowing you’re the first one to fuck the girl is a huge ego boost. Personally I wouldn’t want to be the Fleezer that has to fuck MY sloppy seconds, how could he possibly compete? She’d be thinking of me the whole time lol

@keyser
I’m sure everyone would love if they could read useful contributions by you instead of me, but you don’t seem to be up to that challenge.

“I’d love to see a video where Tyler goes to a bad ass biker bar and try to hit on their women lol.”

Done it myself, same shit as anywhere else. Most bikers are actually cool friendly accepting guys if you treat them with respect instead of walking in with stereotypes of them in mind.

But hey, keep moving those goalposts. Why don’t we save time and you just skip to Fleezer level where you demand Tyler announces that he’s going to fuck a AAA celebrity and then does it and posts videos of his dick going in and out of her pussy for him to jack off to?

@Sentient
“Same thing in field… he starts with near instant free IOI’s that he can then offset with bad subcomms [no one says subcomms are fake] or amplify with good subcomms. But the “free IOI” is still attraction in the moment. The question then becomes what happens after the moment.”

Step by step here we go:

1) our society has convinced girls that muscles means he’s more likely to have good subcomms and the core diamond attractive traits she’s ACTUALLY attracted to

2) so by DEFAULT, she will assume he probably has those

3) so when you take away his ability to reveal SHITTY subcomms (like using a photo instead of a video, or having him stand there saying/doing nothing), she assumes by default that he probably has that shit…THAT’S what’s triggering the IOI’s, not his muscles themselves. Just like in some other society the flat head shit would indicate to their women that the guy probably has that shit

and 4) if the guy puts value in those IOIs then he doesn’t have good subcomms and if he HAS good subcomms then he doesn’t NEED those IOIs, so they’re an irrelevant red herring that guys who think looks matter use to point to “SEE, she touched his arm and she liked that photo of the singing gay muscular dude so that’s basically sex!!!! You can guage your worthiness by the IOIs you get!!” which falls apart when you get into the hotter girl range because the hotter girls don’t hand out freebie IOIs because they want to know you assume attraction (aka have good internals and subcomms)

No one is saying he won’t get free gimme IOI’s or that you can’t use those, we’re saying the REASON he is getting them is not because the muscles are themselves attractive, which is the whole base of all this “looks matter” shit, it’s that it’s what those muscles SIGNIFY he is likely to HAVE that’s attractive, that’s WHY the actual actor isn’t as attractive as his Dom character, because the actual actor has lame subcomms. And this is why the gay singing dude’s video isn’t sexy, because he’s actively demonstrating he doesn’t have those subcomms. And this is why Tyler Julien scray myself etc get attraction when they demonstrate those diamond core concepts, because it’s THOSE that are attractive.

@Scray @Sentient
“you don’t seem to have much of an opinion of why they make a difference. you instead seem fixated on the fact that they make a difference”

This. The problem with the view that “muscles = attractive” is that it sends guys to the gym ignoring their subcomms and they end up like the actor playing Dom instead of like Dom. That’s why we can tool them infield and take their girls and make them insecure/self-conscious and be 1% cooler than them in front of girls etc, because their internals are weak and shitty because everyone told them “muscles = attractive” instead of “subcomms = attractive, work on those while you lift or skip the lifting and work on those and go lift down the road when your subcomms are solid”.

That’s why we have a problem with your summary of it. It wastes guys’ time because they end up down the road being jacked as fuck but still FULLY subscribed to the FI system where they have to be a certain level of muscular to “deserve” the hotter girls (who are, by that logic, up on a pedestal) and then they end up not getting results (except for the aggressive 6s that approach them) and end up frustrated and now they’re a few years older and they come to us saying “how do I get HOT girls??? I’m jacked I thought that would do it because Sentient and Rollo told me muscles = attractive!!” and then we have to fix all their shitty subcomms that we COULD’VE fixed from day one if they hadn’t been given shitty theoretical advice that we have ENDLESS counter-evidence for.

@Sentient
“although the “flat head” demonstrations and similar always seem to be outliers and very primitive culture”

Yes, let’s just keep classifying all the counter-evidence as outliers lol You don’t even have to look that far back, the whole beards = sexy thing is a very recent movement. There was a point where those Affliction style crazy skull design shirts were “cool” (before Affliction was a brand) and if you were the only one wearing them in a club full of normal-dressed guys you stood out as high-value because you were clearly able to not care about social pressure etc, then those shirts became mainstream via UFC and every loser started wearing them and now they’re no longer an indicator of high-status (and are an indicator of low status most of the time) and a guy wearing them looks out of touch and is made fun of (until the point where he can wear them and BECAUSE it’s lame and puts social pressure on him, it becomes high-value again, like going out in a mullet and 80s clothes and owning it).

But again that all comes down to: does the guy look comfortable/confident (aka good subcomms) or insecure/nervous (aka shitty subcomms)? Todd can go record infield of him dressed like a complete nerd, and talk about Warcraft, but he feels confident doing it so he does well. Whereas a warcraft nerd who thinks “girls won’t like me” does poorly. Because of subcomms.

“I say here “looks” will generally connote health and fitness. Too much of these comments have gone into extremes of “jacked”, “yoked” etc”

Because when you tell a newbie “muscles = attractive” and that newbie spends his time in the gym and still isn’t getting result, what do you think the logical conclusion he’s going to make is, based on your shitty advice? “Guess I need more/bigger muscles, because muscles = attractive and if I’m not attractive then I must not be jacked enough!” And congrats, you send another guy down a waste of time track that fucks him up and ends with him coming back to the community a few years older when sarging is tougher and he has to do what he SHOULD’VE been told to do on day one: “work on your subcomms, go hit the field, don’t worry about muscles”.

“What looks healthy is the center of the curve; facial symmetry, healthy skin, teeth, clear eyes, lean body, narrow waist, broad shoulders. Which corresponds with several millennia of data. And the 40/50’s stars fall right into this basket.”

Until they demonstrate bad subcomms, and then none of that shit matters. Evidence? Death row in the field, every fucking weekend lol

“Exactly the point I have been making!”

Like scray said, your problem is that we are talking about WHY they get IOIs and you don’t care why and are giving innacurate advice.

@Rollo
“Whenever we get into the ‘Looks’ debate YaReally and I get in the habit of talking past one another.”

I don’t actually think you would disagree with me if you answered the specific questions I ask. But you stop analyzing at the surface level, just like Sentient…which is weird because you’re THE GUY who’s all about “let’s find out WHY women cheat, oh look here’s this Hypergamy stuff, here’s this SMV chart stuff”, but on THIS subject you just blank on it and hold onto your blind spot.

“That said, it’s fairly obvious that a man’s attractive physical presentation (muscles and definition notwithstanding) is a visual representation of what a woman expects his sub-coms will be”

BASED on her social conditioning (flat heads, cool 80s haircuts/fashion, beards/no-beards in 2016 VS 1940s, etc), which is our point, that this can be manipulated and isn’t biologically hardwired and if it can be manipulated then muscles aren’t any more hardwired biologically attractive than flat heads, mullets, etc.

“A good looking guy represents the image (however a woman comes to that) that he ‘likely’ has a capacity for possessing the traits and mindset of being Alpha.”

This. And “however a woman comes to that” is based on her conditioning, which is our point, not inherent hardwiring that, because she went “wow that guy is soooo cool” when she saw the mullet and neon clothed party dude in the 80s, means those things are biologically hardwired to be attractive.

“If that presentation doesn’t align with what a man sub-communicates (i.e. a good looking Beta) about himself he’s incongruent with what that woman expected his looks communicated about him.”

Agreed. That’s why the gay singing guy in a photo might be hot to a girl, but in video he’s actively asexual. But for that to be POSSIBLE, it means that muscles are NOT inherently attractive, there’s no biological hardwiring that makes a girl horny around muscles or girls would see his gay singing video and get the rock hard nipples and soaking pussies you saw your male strippers getting. The fact that they DON’T tells us that we have to dig deeper than “muscles = attractive” and look at the subcomms which are what are demonstrated in that video or in Dom/Mike etc

That’s why I say like, I don’t think you’d ACTUALLY disagree with that if you really sat down and thought about it and answered my counter-points instead of brushing them off. This is 100% logical and aligns with all the evidence we see. It is VERY CONSISTENT that guys with good subcomms do well with women and guys with shitty subcomms don’t, even if those good subcomm guys look like Tyler and the shitty subcomm guys look like the gay jacked singing guy.

Like do you have any argument AGAINST this paragraph I just wrote? I can’t imagine that you could.

“So, when that guy has solid Game and diamond solid sub-coms he too is incongruent with with what his presentation led that woman to presume was true about him from his appearance.”

(based on her social conditioning that tells her David Spade probably won’t have those diamond core alpha traits, not inherent hardwired shit…the only thing hardwired is her desire to find those diamond core concepts that are 100% attractive 100% of the time…using her social conditioning to guess which externals mean the guy is most likely to have those traits is just a shortcut for her, those externals themselves aren’t what’s attractive)

“The next question is then, what is it about a guy’s appearance that leads a woman to expect what his mindset and sub-coms will be?”

Social conditioning.

“Scray will say it’s all about what her social conditioning has taught her to expect, and from a culturally contextual perspective I’m on board with that”

Fucking FINALLY. lol This is why I can’t believe the pushback and the silly “her nipples got hard around male strippers (who have amazing subcomms compared to other men but let’s ignore those subcomms and attribute it to their muscles because we want to justify our hours at the gym)” stuff, ’cause I don’t think you ACTUALLY disagree. You would have to ignore SO MUCH field-tested iron-clad shit about pickup (like preselection triggering jealousy and raising a guy’s value…preselection is just mini-social conditioning in that moment) to disagree.

“but it still doesn’t answer the question why some sub-coms are interpreted as Alpha and attractive while others are considered Beta and unattractive.”

This is where we come to the diamond core concepts of what are always 100% attractive. Which comes back to the shit Mystery laid out back in the day and that we teach guys to focus on fixing infield. It’s VERY CONSISTENT. Making shitty nervous eye-contact and being indecisive and having super gay subcomms is always unattractive. Making confident solid eye-contact, being decisive, assuming attraction, etc are ALWAYS attractive.

“Even in specific cultural instances, good sub-coms are still good sub-coms because they convey something that is attractive. My assertion is that what those sub-coms relay trigger evolutionarily hardwired attraction and arousal prompts in women”

Then you agree: it’s the SUBCOMMS that trigger evolutionarily hardwired attraction and arousal prompts, NOT the muscles.

“irrespective of social context.”

Nope. If an average guy in a beard walks in with a dozen girls on his arm and is engaging a girl with solid subcomms, in that moment, that night, that girl will think “wow beards are sexy” even though they gave zero fucks about them prior to seeing that preselection. It’s hamster rationalizing her attraction to his subcomms (“I’m attracted to him, so he must be attractive, but he doesn’t have muscles so it must be something else like his beard”). That’s why we can manipulate what they find attractive and that’s why, like Tyler says, when a girl is attracted she’ll rationalize away your flaws and turn them into features, and when she loses attraction she’ll say “wtf was I thinking” and hate on that same stuff. Because they can be easily manipulated, because the only thing hardwired is their desire/search for those 100% attractive subcomms.

“was how solid sub-coms can attract a woman even if you are from another culture and speak another language. If that’s the case, there must be some universal foundation of attraction that is conveyed by those sub-coms.”

Yes, that’s why it’s impossible to ignore subcomms and Sentient’s “oh is this going to become some catch-all mysterious basket we throw things in” thing is bullshit. Subcomms are very real and very observable. THOSE are what are attractive. And women are hardwired to seek them out. And she uses “ping off my environment (aka absorb social conditioning)” to know that “Ryan Gosling is those attractive traits, trust us girls, look at all these other girls who want him even though none of you gave a shit about him LAST year before we started pushing him as the hottest thing in Hollywood and then, because our blogs and shit are written BY women we all fed off eachother’s positive preselection about him making his value skyrocket and all you girls pinging off us for how to feel now think he’s the sexiest thing on earth when objectively he has a goofy looking lopsided face”

“We can debate all day about how social conditioning prompts learned attraction cues”

We don’t have to if you agree that that’s the dynamic that happens, which nullifies the “muscles cause girls nipples to harden” argument.

“You can say well, women will fuck dogs, but to my knowledge, there are no attraction sub-coms being relayed by dogs.”

lol dogs do give off subcomms, just like those bonobo apes fucking do. There’s a reason girls fantasizing about fucking dogs aren’t fantasizing about little fluffy purse-dogs fucking them and instead pick big hulking dangerous dogs that are basically the animal equivalent of “the rough alpha bad boy” in terms of subcomms.

“Good sub-coms are based on something that appeals to a commonly evolved root level attraction in women. Whether those get conveyed by Tommy Lee or Tyler or Seth Rogen or Chris Hemsworth or in the clubs or at church, those coms are indicative of something attractive.”

Then you agree that muscles are not, inherently, attractive. It’s the subcomms. The muscles are just another layer, like fashion, of socially conditioned externals that the girl learns “this cake is most likely to have sugar” and, extrapolating that, saying “cake = delicious” or “muscles = attractive” is inaccurate.

@scray @Sentient
“but we’re just talking about WHY they make a difference. no one is saying they don’t make a difference”

This lol Because that WHY is *VERY IMPORTANT*. That WHY is the difference between Elon Musk getting cheated on. That WHY is the difference between why Dan Bilzerian fucks the also jacked/rich bodybuilding site guy who bought his girl a Tesla (how ironic lol). That WHY is the difference between jacked insecure guys who can get tooled in the field and stand on Death Row all night and go home frustrated that they aren’t getting laid when society told them “muscles = attractive” and get depressed and either start roiding up chasing the illusion running the socially conditioned rat race trying to make “muscles = attractive” work when their subcomms are fucked, and scrawny little Tyler’s getting laid by hot girls that are “supposed” to be way out of their league.

That WHY is the difference between a guy coming to us at 25yo looking for help and fixing himself by 30 and a guy who’s 25yo coming to us, getting sent off down the wrong path, and ending up coming BACK to us at 30yo and his friends have settled down and he feels out of place in bars and he ends up not getting his shit handled till he’s 35. That WHY is the difference between a guy coming out of his divorce and tearing shit up trading up, or coming out of his divorce and going through the frustrating internal ego crisis scribblerg is battling.

That WHY is the difference between a guy losing attraction from his wife and coming to Rollo for help or offing himself when she cheats on him, because he never really understood what was ACTUALLY attractive and how him hitting the gym wasn’t about getting jacked because “muscles = attractive” (even though tons of jacked dudes get cheated on and divorced and deadbedroomed all the time, because they have shitty subcomms) it was about subcommunicating dread game and preselection etc which is what ACTUALLY turns his wife on and then from there learning about dominance and decisiveness all the other subcomms because he understands the subcomms are what’s important.

@scray @Rollo
“I’m a big believer in circumstance — i.e. situational ‘alpha’ ness playing a big role in your success, along with your own personal behaviors.”

Situational confidence just comes back to “in certain environments I feel free/comfortable/high-value enough to let out my GOOD subcomms, but in other environments I feel stifled and judged and worry too much and give off BAD subcomms”.

A LOT of guys who get into game that think they’re introverts aren’t ACTUALLY introverts…around their very close personal buddies when they play warcraft or whatever they’re talkative and expressive and opinionated etc. It’s just that around other people they don’t feel as free/comfortable/high-value so they stifle up and then some idiot who doesn’t understand any of this labels them as having social anxiety and they make an identity out of it when really they just need to learn how to feel comfortable in social situations (guess how you do that…HIT THE FUCKING FIELD lol)

Really the guy I am NOW is just the same kid I was when I was like 4 years old and doing whatever I wanted and not caring what people thought and expressing whatever I thought/felt in the moment. Society taught me to sit down and shut up and stifle up and not feel good enough or high-value so I spent years and years as an “introvert”. And I AM introverted, socializing takes energy from me and I need my recharge time, I’ve got legitimate extrovert buddies to compare myself to. But that introversion isn’t anywhere near as crippling as I thought it was, because I took action to make myself feel as comfortable in social situations with people I don’t know, as I am in private situations with people I DO know, and that’s why I don’t let guys off the hook when they cry about their social anxiety. Hit the field and you’ll be surprised how much of that goes away after a few years infield.

“and people who make a lot of T act like superman —- very content with themselves and confident, etc ==> high value behaviors associated with high social status”

Right. It’s not the T that’s attractive, women can’t smell your magic T pheromones in the air, it’s just that your subcomms end up being high-value subcomms…unless you aren’t getting laid and cross into that frustrated “too MUCH T WHY WONT’ THESE BITCHES FUCK ME AAAAGHHGHG” mode where your subcomms end up back in low-value land coming off desperate/needy/outcome dependent lol

Just like getting laid isn’t magically sensed by women with some woo-woo shit. It’s just that your subcomms are non-needy outcome independent etc high-value after you’ve just gotten laid. And when you haven’t been laid in a while you’re more likely to have needy shitty outcome dependent subcomms.

It’s all consistent. This is why we can load up episodes of Keys to the VIP and we can watch good-looking dudes get shot down and normal dudes do well, AND vice-versa, and it all makes sense when you look at their subcomms instead of their looks.

“different environments across the world need different skills — physical, mental, etc. — and so, the types of men who ‘win’ in different environments WILL differ.”

aka the externals that represent your likelihood of having those ACTUAL attractive diamond core concept traits, different in society to society, environment to environment, culture to culture, and time period to time period.

“so RANDOM set of Traits that goes well with Environment X = WIN —> and ALL guys who WIN —-> behave like the are high social status —> get pussy.”

Right. It’s the WINNING (or the probability of being ABLE to win) that’s attractive and cause the hard nipples, not the traits themselves (muscles, cool mullets, flat heads, etc).

@Forge the Sky
“a lot of the resistance I was running into was her wondering if I wanted to date her/ have a relationship rather than have a more casual thing”

Means you’re showing Lover AND Provider traits, so she can’t tell. When you adamantly put yourself into one or the other category, they don’t have that confusion. At some point you gave her the possible notion or hope that you MIGHT be down to be her boyfriend/serious relationship. You can decide how to tweak your game (if this was an annoying situation to you) based on that information.

“And I missed the cues bc I didn’t really imagine that she would want to have things be casual, given her background etc. Yes, I know.”

Insert facepalm you know is coming. lol

“I got that girls have a strong sexual nature, but I didn’t expect her to just already have a few FWB’s and to see me as being a good potential candidate for another if only she could be sure I wouldn’t get clingy and cause drama.”

Welcome to 2016!

In 2005 I had to give girls these huge elaborate speeches with all this shit about how LTRs cause people to take eachother for granted and how casual things are better because bla bla bla

In 2016? I barely start to get the words out of my mouth before the GIRLS say “I hope you aren’t looking for anything serious, I’m just not looking to settle down yet, my ex was SO CLINGY and I need my freedom #grrlpower #feminism #eatpraylove #yolo” and I just smile and go “I agree :)” and lol internally at how much easier it’s gotten, and internally weep for society and her future when she tries to get off the cock carousel lol

These days especially, it’s better to get blown out for OVER-escalating than UNDER-escalating. Because their biggest worry is time-wasters. If you’re a LOVER, then you ESCALATE. If you don’t escalate then you go into the Potential Provider category and a TON of women aren’t LOOKING for a Provider because they’ve been socially conditioned to avoid settling down till they’re 30+ and surprise surprise you never hear from the girl again…not because she wasn’t attracted but because you put yourself in a category that she isn’t looking for.

You can ALWAYS go from casual FWB Lover to serious LTR Provider, but you can very rarely go the opposite way. I could call most of the girls I’ve been with and say “hey I’m done with the bar scene and I want to settle down and we had a really great connection other girls have just reminded me how much better you are than them bla bla” and be in an LTR in a heartbeat, even if they’re with other guys (unless they’re in the first 6 months to a year New Relationship Energy stage).

“So I asked her about some of her experiences (she was making it easy for me, implying that she had had all sorts of experiences that she was cool with) and I found that finally I could just sort of be curious about a girl’s sexual life/history without it being a weird jealous thing.”

Good man. This is a sign of progress. It means you’re heading toward ACTUALLY being non-judgemental. That doesn’t mean you have to settle down with a girl with a crazy past, it just means that girls will open up to you ABOUT their pasts and you’ll get a LOT more honest assessment of her history to make your “is she LTR material” decision based on, compared to the judgemental guy who she’ll never tell about her FBs and will pretend to have a low N-count for etc

“She more or less came out and told me then that she had been worried before that I wanted to date her”

’cause you didn’t make it clear through your words and/or actions, that you DON’T want anything serious. That’s why I have routines about how LTRs are stifling and how I work too much to have a girlfriend and how I’m a shitty boyfriend who forgets birthdays and anniversaries etc etc To actively disqualify myself from them not knowing what I want.

“She teased the shit out of me then – gave me SUCH a smile and said, sweetly: ‘You want to play this game. But YOUdidn’t do your homework. And THIS is how the game is played.’ Punctuated her words with kisses and grinding. Minx.”

lol I don’t disagree with her. I get tested a few times a year and I quiz girls on if they’ve been tested too. Look into what she’s actually saying though, she’s trying to educate you saying “you’re trying to play this Lover role but you aren’t doing the things a Lover who’s been banging a ton of girls would probably be doing” Like, she’s giving you advice to HELP you be congruent. When I drop “lol ya I think everyone has partners on the go these days, that’s why I get tested regularly” that alone subcomms that “ok this guy probably hooks up a lot and I can trust that he’s probably clean”.

Girls WILL fuck you and rawdog you withOUT asking or caring that you haven’t been tested but personal policy on my part I like to have that shit handled. Hard to play the game if I catch the herp or AIDS lol

“We agreed that perhaps it’d be a good idea to meet up weekly or so to have a drink, chat, and give mutual massages (seeing where they lead.)”

And by that she means “go get tested dumbass so that we can make sure one of these future massages actually leads to P in V (and by that I mean YOU lead it to P in V)” I would literally txt her from the waiting room “in the waiting room “doing my homework” πŸ˜‰ results should be back in a week”

“Thanks for all the help I’ve gotten here so far. Hope this helps inspire some lurker out there.”

Props dude, minus the lack of sex it sounds like a fun night that opened some new doors for you in terms of your internal mindsets about sex and women etc. Also if I end up in those situs I wait till she’s super turned on and then try to put her hand on my dick and if she doesn’t go for it and it looks like we’ll have to wait till next time, I just whip it out myself and tell her I have to take care of my blueballs and have her whisper sexy shit in my ear, nibble my neck etc Can’t think of a time they haven’t been receptive to that and then you’re at least not letting her fully set the frame of what’s “allowed”.

@Bromeo
“lol sounding incongruent af right now bruh”

That’s because you’re not reading what I’m saying about how Tinder (aka photos) remove subcomms. It’s a nuanced discussion, read my replies to Sentient in this post.

“1. Do masculine physical traits like muscularity and facial symmetry cause attraction (numerous studies on this), or is it social conditioning?”

Ask the flat-head guys and girls who are attracted to Ryan Gosling’s face.

“2. Why are certain sub comms attraction triggers and others are not?”

Because certain subcomms demonstrate your ability to “WIN” as scray puts it. aka your actual status in society which is your actual ability to increase her chances of survival/replication. In the past muscles WERE useful for that, and Hollywood started up around the time where hard physical labor and fighting etc still gave you a lot of clout so all the social conditioning since the 50s or whenever has been pushing the “muscles = likely to increase your chance of survival/replication”. 50+ years from now when nerds rule everything, if Hollywood pushes Bill Gates as “sexy” for 50 years, Bill Gates may be legitimately seen as attractive lol

Women ping off their environment to determine what external traits represent high-status, that’s WHY preselection and social proof and pivots work. In that moment in that room you are manipulating “what represents high-value” and making it “the traits that I have do” and she feeds off her environment to pick up on that value system and finds you attractive even if she didn’t CHOOSE to.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 2:22 am
Original Link

Part 2:

@Bromeo @Blaximus
“All I have is real life experience….which has gotta be worth something, right? Lol.”
“Lol, You know, I have been giving this waaayyy too much thought lately and I am having a hard time coming to a real conclusion.”

This is why it’s hard to explain this stuff to Naturals. When there’s too much to think about they revert to “whatever!!! fuck it!!! this is stupid, I just KNOW WHAT I KNOW ALRIGHT????” lol That’s why guys like Mystery and Tyler with obsessive “dive into the nitty gritty” robot brains for this stuff had to codify game into something consistently teachable, even though Naturals have had the skillsets since the dawn of time. Naturals have a hard time digging into the details and getting into discussions like these because part OF being a Natural is not really consciously thinking about this stuff (even if they’re incredibly technical/analytic in OTHER areas of their life), but these extremely technical nuanced discussions are necessary to really break down how social/sexual dynamics work.

We’re not after what feels good or what’s simple, we’re after the TRUTH.

And that’s not hating on you guys. It’s just, you “know what you know” and that’s good enough for you because you have a lifetime of trusting your gut instincts. But that’s not how you get a rocket into space lol

“I’m not 100% sold on the idea that other people can/will key in on facial symmetry all that much.”

’cause they don’t. Those studies are silly nonsense by guys who have no idea how attraction works.

Is this a symmetrical face?:


And yet he was the sexiest man in the world a few years ago…now girls don’t give as much of a shit about him because other guys have been pushed to the forefront. Just like they don’t have posters of N’Sync on their wall anymore.

In fact, let’s take the facial symmetry thing somewhere WEIRD.

Mull this over in your head:

How do you keep a girl interested? We tell men to be mysterious to girls, to be ambiguous and to give them a puzzle to obsess over and solve. We tell men that being predictable and routine and fully “known” with no mystery is BORING to girls.

Why? Because we know that if you hook a girl with a little mystery, even though she may get frustrated or mad or annoyed with you, she will OBSESS over you. If you’re ambiguous with your validation she’ll chase it etc

So keeping that in mind…is it REALLY better to have a symmetrical face?

Or is it better to have a face that the girl has to study and figure out and it has all these little lines and wrinkles that imply stories in your life and give you character and make her curious and wonder about your face and give her more to learn/study about it.

But that’s just me throwing out keyboard theory lol Babies look at symmetrical faces longer so OBVIOUSLY that means girls want to fuck the two Clooneys and two (can’t remember his name) guys on the right instead of the asymmetrical natural version of them that they’re currently fantasizing about fucking (wait wut?). #SCIENCE

“Muscularity IME was a definite bonus wrt getting women.”

With all due respect, you have demonstrated that you are not a “reliable narrator”. Aka you didn’t/don’t understand enough about all the little subcomm nuances etc to have an unbiased accurate assessment of your previous success, so we can’t trust your estimation.

Same way Rollo talks about male strippers and ignores their subcomms and someone else brings up a brain damaged dude who was jacked and got laid but we ask questions and find out he has amazing alpha subcomms by fluke etc etc Your guys’ personal experiences aren’t reliable because you didn’t know (and may still NOT know) what to even look for.

Again that’s not an insult, it’s just like, I wouldn’t trust my assessment of why a rocket made it into space even if I successfully sent a rocket into space, because I have no idea what I’m doing I just know it worked and then try to square peg round hole it into my view/paradigm of the world.

VS what we’re doing as PUAs where we can look at infield footage and nail down “see that right there? that’s good subcomms and what he did there caused this reaction from her. See that right there? That’s shitty subcomms” etc etc

“It is social conditioning up to a certain point.”

It’s 100% social conditioning (but your brain is so invested in it that you have to do the “okay let’s say it’s 99.9999% social conditioning but STILL you gotta admit there’s that little 0.0001% that it matters right???” thing which is natural for anyone to do when evidence contradicts their belief system lol (witness Purple Pill guys)) If Hollywood pushed that muscles meant you were repulsive and low-value and a loser, for 50+ years across all media from the day girls are born, they would find muscles unattractive.

“This is why Seth Rogan should have no problems getting laid, lol”

Seth Rogan isn’t on the cover of “Cosmos Sexiest Man”, because those magazines are run by people who grew up under this social conditioning and will just keep perpetuating the same social conditioning because going against social conditioning will hurt their sales. But just like David Spade, in person one on one he may have no trouble at ALL getting laid even though he doesn’t fit the “mold”, if he has solid subcomms when he’s interacting with women (but HE also has a lifetime of social conditioning that tells him he’s NOT supposed to feel attractive, so it’s less likely that he’s going to HAVE those good subcomms/confidence).

It’s a cycle that feeds in on itself.

“But women will never, ever look at Seth the same way they look at a more muscular guy because the muscularity triggers something else within them.”

If guys that look like Seth Rogan were pushed as the sexiest man alive for 50 years across all media from the day girls are born and start pinging off their environments, Seth Rogan would be “triggering something else within them” and this conversation would have guys who look like Seth Rogan saying “trust me bro it’s the high bodyfat, it triggers involuntary biological hardwired responses” and finding a million ways to rationalize it, just like the square-head guys probably do.

Again our point isn’t that muscles DON’T get you free gimme IOI’s in this current culture’s socially conditioned value system, they DO, but it’s not because muscles themselves are attractive, it’s because social conditioning has told girls that guys with muscles are more likely to be their best survival/replication option.

“No eyebrow wiggling, or silly sleepy eyed look, lol. Your subs will depend on what your mindset is. Shitty mindset, shitty subs.”

The catch is that you can fake a good mindset (like Dom in those BroScience vids or Furious with his white gangster persona) which gives you good subcomms while you’re in character.

Really “acting” (Hollywood acting) is just about convincing people you congruently have the subcomms of that character you’re portraying. Heath Ledgers Joker performance was amazing to everyone because even down to his speaking style and the little licking of his lips and his tiniest body language/movements he was 100% congruent to the character he was playing. But he wasn’t ACTUALLY like that, he just knew how to turn it on for the cameras. Same way Dom from BroScience can turn it on. Same way a lot of PUAs start out faking it till they make it.

“So being muscular and handsome with awful game/subcomms will relegate one to loser category with a large segment of the female population”

Then “muscles/looks = attractive” is inaccurate, because we can get two opposite results from it. So we drill deeper to find out what’s consistently attractive, which are the diamond core principles.

“but not all of them. Some will try you for the experience because you are ” different ” and what they’ve been fantasizing about. In those cases a guy will have to inadvertently talk her out of fucking him.”

Do they fantasize about you with your look acting like Michael Cera or some “do you consent to this? may I touch you here please? :)” nervous feminist chode in the bedroom? No, they fantasize about you having GOOD SUBCOMMS when they fantasize about you fucking them. So again it comes down to subcomms.

@having a bad day
“Either AWALT or NAWALT right?”

Exactly why I’m harping on this. Manosphere/TRP guys have a blind spot where everything is in alignment except for this one looks/money area where suddenly they have to make a bunch of exceptions and call a bunch of evidence outliers and make excuses and duct tape bandage up their theory and just hope no one calls it out as inconsistent (because no one is actually going out and pushing those boundaries because these communities don’t go out and sarge the way PUAs did where Todd was doing sommersaults to enter a set JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS lol Most RVF guys will never go hit the field without their custom fitted suit because they might suffer an ego crash if they don’t get positive IOIs infield).

AWALT, so let’s break this down into something consistent. What’s CONSISTENT is that guys with good subcomms are attractive. What’s CONSISTENT is that guys with bad subcomms aren’t attractive. THAT is consistent.

MUSCLES is NOT consistent because we have jacked/fit guys that get laid like crazy and we have jacked/fit guys that can’t get laid to save their lives. So the idea of “muscles = biologically involuntarily nipple hardening pussy soaking bla bla” is INACCURATE because it’s not the MUSCLES doing it, it’s the SUBCOMMS.

“(i’m really NOT trying to be pedantic…lol…but the carry-on effects/implications of inaccurate theory in the knowledge-base is bad for men, so…)”

Exactly. This shit fucks guys UP and wastes their time sending them down paths that won’t help them chasing rewards that aren’t consistently guaranteed to pan out and will send them back to the start of the Snakes & Ladders board to learn the shit they should’ve been taught on day one except now they’re coming back with a bunch of insecurities and bad wiring and interal negativity we have to fix.

@quixotic
“Reading through comments there is a gulf in males forming tribes that i see for 2 groups of men: Young guys with little social experience and older/married guys.”

Lemme preface this next with with: no hate for the guys I’m talking about, I’m not saying your opinion is worthless, especially in other areas (like married life, kids, general life wisdom etc, I’m talking SPECIFICALLY about picking up and fucking <25yo poon) so don't take it personal, I'm just stating a logical rational point:

Nothing against the older/married guys, but I don't think they realized how much has changed out there since they left the game. Their little "dabbles" flirting with a waitress or bottle model or observing their daughter just aren't relevant these days. Culture has shifted DRAMATICALLY in even 10 YEARS, like if you told me in 2005 about social media and what it was going to do and Tinder and shit, I'd have been like no way man it'll just be the same thing, but it's NOT. The very core underlying hardwired dynamics are the same, but everything above it has changed.

You can't KNOW this stuff unless you're experiencing it first-hand by trying to stick your dick in the <25yo crowd regularly. But the old guys think they know everything and are like "sure sure, whatever, trust me this is how it IS" and it's like nope, sorry, your data is out of date. Hit the field and actually stick your dick in the <25yo crowd.

That doesn't mean their advice is worthless or anything, it's just that there's a VERY big disconnect between theory and CURRENT DAY field experience. If I stopped going out I would have to listen to the guys in the field about how shit is because I would no longer be collecting up to date data about societal shifts.

Like this from @Rollo

"Look at my Twitter feed. This is the kind of girl I’ve been doing promos with for over 10 years now."

Have you been ACTUALLY sticking your dick inside her? This is the same as my buddy who takes photos of models showing me all the "hot girls he knows" on his phone. Some of them even totes give him IOIs and stuff. It's fluff feel-good experience/validation that doesn't really count for anything if it conflicts with what guys infield FUCKING that girl are reporting. We literally have a label ("Hired Guns") for those girls BECAUSE we pick those girls up and ACTUALLY fuck them, not just work an event and flirt with them (at an event where they're our subordinate and we have massive value and social proof and preselection…but it's totally our muscles under our suit that are attractive not that other stuff)

@hank holiday
"Go to one venue, hang out for a half hour or so. If nothing happens, oh well, still went out."

Keep it up. Tyler does just 20 min a day of sarging during the week most of the time. Just keeping those social muscles exercised and teaching your brain "nothing THAT bad happens when I go out" and your brain will eventually be like "ok well these outings are kind of boring, okay what if we ask this group of girls on the street for directions or talk to this girl ordering a drink beside us just to see what happens"

I can't even count the number of solo uneventful nights I had out. As long as you aren't drinking or spending a bunch of money there's no real downside to it, think of it as exercise going for a walk lol Google your bars and look for Guest Lists you can sign onto to skip paying cover.

"It made me realize in the future I could intentionally pick out seating arrangements like this. Where I had a comfortable seat facing away from girl, but the girl was in an awkward position that forces her to lean in towards me. So even if she wasn’t actually attracted to me, she would be forced into body langauge like she was. It would look really good for any other girls observing us."

This is called "locking in" (Mystery Method). And yes, it does exactly what you think it does lol

How pimp does Mystery look at 2:13 in this video:

He's sitting there leaning back and has 3 girls leaning into him fighting over his attention and laughing etc. Anyone (especially girls) who see that think "THIS is a high-value guy".

"Then, I grabbed her margarita, drank some, put it back. She immediately got upset “What are you doing? You don’t even know me. You should ask first.” I just ignored her, and asked her if she had been to this one city. A friend of mine had lived there before. I wondered if she liked it. Of course she IMMEDIATELY forgets about me taking her drink and dives into the convo. Lol. Of course then she started leaning more towards me, she moved her leg over close toward me.

A few minutes later she just gave me the rest of her margarita and ordered another."

lolol THIS stuff is why I harp on going out. If I TOLD you that was what would happen, you wouldn't believe me. But because you WENT OUT and PUSHED THE BOUNDARIES, you now understand a bit more about how having high-value works and you have reference experiences of getting away with shit. If you do this stuff to a hotter girl, she'll react the same way (possibly even react BETTER because NO ONE has EVER had the balls to do that kind of shit to her).

"So she wanted to proke me into openly revealing if I like her or not. If I still didn’t seem to like her, she could preemptively reject ME to save face."

Good read.

"BUT if you can pick up on the fact that she’s about to reject you, you can cut her off before she can do that."

Even better: when you sense the set is dying, USE HER as a pivot to open hotter girls around you (if you were in a venue with more people in it), before she leaves. Julien talks about this a lot and does this all the time:

"But I’ve found most times there are actually a few opportunites to practice a little game."

Look how much you learned/internalized about entitlement/value/subcomms/etc by going out and talking to some 5 you aren't even into and doing your Field Report.

@Culum Struan
"Point being: I think it is probably harder to do than going from Lover to Provider, but you CAN go from Provider to Lover if you disqualify hard enough."

Yup. It's POSSIBLE, but it's an uphill battle…a first date before she's really formed a solid opinion about you or classified you, is probably the easiest time TO make that disqualifying category switch. But a girl who's known you for years and SEEN you be Providery will be a million times harder, if not impossible, to convince you're a Lover suddenly, ESPECIALLY if she has investment in you BEING a Provider (like you were her emergency parachute from the cock carousel) and will work a million times harder to force you back into your Provider habits.

But props for experimenting with it and even TRYING to reset the frame, most guys would just go along with it and date her for a month hoping to get sex at the end while she's fucking assholes like me between dates lol


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:11 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“If you remove the negative subcoms, AND he has not evidenced ANY positive subcomms then there are NO subcomms, and yet he is still deemed attractive.”

you–what?? …??????

You can’t have NO subcomms. Is THAT the disconnect, that you don’t even know what subcomms ARE??? You can’t have NO subcomms, that’s not a THING that can HAPPEN.

You can’t–

Jesus. Okay look: you can’t NOT have “body language”. That’s not POSSIBLE. Unless you don’t have a body. You either have good body language or you don’t. You either have confidence or you don’t, you can’t not have “anything” unless you don’t exist. You’re either have good tonality or you don’t have good tonality, you don’t have NO tonality unless you have no voice box.

It’s like saying “I don’t know if this cake tastes good or not, so this cake has no taste”. It HAS a taste, it either tastes good or it doesn’t, it doesn’t NOT have a taste because it’s a THING you can put in your MOUTH and you have tastebuds. You don’t look at a cake and go “I bet that tastes like air”, you make an assumption about how it probably will taste based on your social conditioning and reference experiences (ie – “that cake looks like it will taste delicious”).

When you aren’t actively displaying NEGATIVE subcomms, the girl ***ASSUMES THAT IF YOU FIT WHAT SOCIAL CONDITIONING TOLD HER IS LIKELY TO HAVE THOSE ATTRACTIVE SUBCOMMS, THAT YOU HAVE THOSE ATTRACTIVE SUBCOMMS BECAUSE SOCIAL CONDITIONING HAS TOLD HER YOU ARE LIKELY TO***

There’s no such thing as having NO SUBCOMMS lol Or looking at someone and not seeing subcomms.

“Whether that response is biologically conditioned OR socially conditioned isn’t even relevant to the effect”

It’s 100% relevant because if subcomms are what cause the attraction and muscles are not, then you’re sending guys to the gym to develop something that HAS NO ACTUAL RELEVANCE TO ATTRACTION. You might as well send them to collect stamps for a stamp collection.

“And this brings us back to the curiously termed “free” IOI. I’ve tossed that wording around a bit, it is unusual, what is meant by “free”? Unearned? That seems consistent with your bias that IOI’s need to be “earned” via an ACTION.”

I answered this in the last thread already. You can call it whatever you want, you can call them magic foo-foo IOIs, it doesn’t matter, the point is that they don’t mean anything. The girl ASSUMES YOU HAVE POSITIVE SUBCOMMS because you fit the socially conditioned stereotype of a guy who looks like he WILL have them, and THAT ASSUMPTION is what gets the IOIs. So AGAIN it’s the subcomms that your fitting society’s stereotype that are attractive, not the muscles themselves.

Unreal. “No subcomms”. You would have to be invisible for that lol Do I need to make a post on what subcomms ARE?? Cause you know I WILL lol

@SJF
“I certainly won’t take you hating the walls of comment text from monogamous married life, teen and twenties red pill parenting, general life wisdom personally.”

I don’t hate it at all. You keep putting that assumption on me but I just skip those posts or skim them for future knowledge. I don’t hate them and don’t want you guys to stop posting them, that’s not a thing I’ve EVER said.

What I’m saying is that your experience “going out in the field, socializing well in a large variety of social situations a lot these days” doesn’t give you an accurate assessment of what it’s like to seduce and fuck <25yo girls. Unless you're sticking your dick IN <25yo girls when you're out socializing. Just like my dabbling in rocket science, even if I'm pretty good at it, doesn't mean my opinion on how to fly a rocket to the moon takes precedence over the opinion of a rocket scientist who's flying them to the moon every weekend.

As long as what I'm saying about rocket flight doesn't go AGAINST what they're saying, cool, that's awesome, but if it DOES then their up to date recent experience takes precedence especially in something like the SMP where the dynamics are changing or warping drastically fast with technology.

"BPP and myself have had remarkable transformations of our LTR’s by applying red pill theory. Rollo and Blaximus are remarkable natural masculine men that have used red pill theory to elevate their game to a higher plane. And sometimes readers of this blog want to hear about it."

And that is all awesome. Quit saying I'm telling guys not to post their LTR experience, I've NEVER done that. But if you tell me how to pick up a 21yo hottie and it goes against what I, Tyler, all the guys I know hitting the field, who pick UP and FUCK 21yo hotties say, then I'm sorry but your opinion is just an opinion and may be outdated or too theoretical. That doesn't mean you're a shitty person or that no one wants to read what you have to say or that I somehow want to decide what gets posted in Rollo's blog, it's just common sense that field experience trumps theory.

"“of sticking your dick in <25 y.o.'s……." to the end of that sentence"

I assume by now everyone knows I'm not talking about banging 51yo's in my LTR with my kids downstairs lol

@Rollo
"Because she learned from her girlfriends and pop-culture that great danes are more socially desirable as potential fucks than poodles? Really?"

Is there anyone here who wouldn't know how a giant rabid ape would fuck its mate? Does anyone reading this think that it would cuddle it and light candles and gently ask permission? No, at some point in our lives we learned from social conditioning (the visuals and information we take in from society and our experiences) that an ape is going to fuck the shit out of its mate.

What she's learnt at some point in her life is that "a big large beast who gives no fucks about respecting your personal space will fuck the shit out of whatever it sticks its dick in", which is displaying subcomms like dominance, assuming attraction (or rather not CARING if the thing it's fucking is attracted which is similar lol), physical manhandling, confidence, entitlement (that dog isn't gonna ask her permission), full expression of its emotions in the moment (dog isn't holding back or putting on a facade, it's just doing what it's biology says to do with no stifling), etc

"Why is monster porn about fucking a big physically dominant Big Foot and not garden gnomes?"

Because social conditioning has taught her that "big beastly things = physcially dominant".

"the social conditioning you believe is the lowest we can dig is still informed by evolved biological cost-to-benefit signaling (sub-coms)."

So we drink Coke because it's actually nourishing to us and our hardwiring tells us Coke will increase our chance of survival/replication right? It's not because some dudes at Coca Cola realized that they could make money and increase their own survival/replication chances and marketed it to us.

Social conditioning comes first. Women ping off their environments to determine how to feel and to figure out who the highest-value male in the room is. How can you argue that? That's literally the basis of preselection, social proof, jealousy plotlines, using pivots…none of that shit would work to make girls think Tyler is hot if their biology came before their social conditioning.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:24 am
Original Link

@Keyser
Nothing I’m saying goes against biology, but their experiments ARE flawed and should mostly be thrown out or redesigned (except that the way they would have to redesign them would be pretty much impossible in this politically correct day and age…they’re never going to do a socially acceptable accurate experiment that explains why a married girl will fuck us in a bar bathroom).

It just goes deeper and explains shit that again none of this “looks matter” stuff explains (like the buff dude with gay subcomms) that none of the looks matter guys can explain (why that guy isn’t attractive but another buff guy with better/masculine subcomms is attractive…if muscles = attractive then that guy should be equally attractive).

@kfg
Yes, at some point you touched a hot stove and burned yourself because you didn’t know a hot stove will burn you. Or you were taught by your mom freaking out when you got near the stove that it’ll burn you, or a friend got burned, etc etc. That’s social conditioning. You didn’t just “know” that a hot stove burns you.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:28 am
Original Link

@kfg
“. . . that Coke is a stimulant and mood enhancer.”

Is there no drink in China that is also a stimulant and mood enhancer? Of course there are. But you aren’t drinking those, you’re drinking Coke. Why? Because Coke was marketed to you so you tasted it and learned what it does to you. If that Coke had tasted SHITTY you would say “ugh, I don’t want any more Coke it’s gross” (just like a girl discovering a muscular dude isn’t alpha).

You aren’t drinking some chinese stimulant mood enhancer drink because you haven’t been socially conditioned to want it and have no idea what it’ll taste like (so you look at it, smell it, etc and make an assumption based on your social conditioning and reference experiences etc of what it’ll PROBABLY taste like…you know it won’t taste like AIR (there’s no such thing as NO subcomms), you know it’ll either taste good or bad…if it’s green and slimy and weird looking you’ll assume it probably tastes bad, if it looks like Coke, you’ll assume, from your social conditioning and ref experiences around Coke that it tastes like Coke (whether that’s good or bad based on your experiences/conditioning)).

It’s like you guys think the entire marketing industry is just random guesswork and has no influence on anyone’s preferences. wtf world am I in here lol


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:29 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“Perhaps we need to look at the definition of “assumes”… An assumption is based on NO proof.”

Okay, then call it “she makes an educated guess based on social conditioning and previous experiences with similar things” if that helps you understand.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:31 am
Original Link

@Sentient
You don’t KNOW that jumping off the cliff beside you is GOING to kill you, but you can make an ASSUMPTION or an EDUCATED GUESS based on your social conditioning of learning that high falls kill people and/or previous reference experiences where you fell and hurt yourself, that it’s probably a good idea to avoid walking off that cliff.

You didn’t just KNOW that coming out of the womb, you learned that shit through your social conditioning as your brain gathered evidence that “falling is probably NOT good”.

If you grew up on the moon where you could fall and safely land with no problems, you wouldn’t worry about falling off that cliff because you would ASSUME or make an EDUCATED GUESS based on your social conditioning and reference experiences etc that you will probably be okay falling off that cliff.

How is this not common sense??


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:42 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“I could market a box of dog shit as the next greatest confectionary, and I could probably get a few people to try it, but the physical revulsion most people would feel at eating it is founded in root level, evolved, biological reactions to eating shit.”

And would you then say “oh it was the box I put the food in that was repulsive to them” (the externals aka muscles aka exterior of the cake) or would you say “it’s the actual TASTE of the food itself” (aka the subcomms/sugar)?

You guys are saying “ahh it’s the packaging, even though that other food has the same packaging and people LOVE it” instead of drilling deeper and going “ohhhh, it’s because while my packaging is the same as that OTHER food, it’s the TASTE of the food that they’re ACTUALLY after”

@Sentient
“You are starting to remind me of the story of the teacher who after the third time explaining something, finally understands it.”

What the fuck are you talking about?? I’ve been saying the same thing since the start.

“But this is still different, as there are visceral reactions your body experiences before any cognition is experienced. Do you agree with this or not?”

THAT IS SOCIAL CONDITIONING. Just like girls brought up in a culture where flat heads are high-value will think flat heads are high-value.

@Rollo
“Bullshit. You should really read more Pinker.”

Oh, okay. Does Pinker say you shouldn’t babyproof your home because babies will just know what sharp corners do and avoid them? Does he say to hand them a running chainsaw or a handful of knives because the baby will just KNOW that they’re sharp and not touch them?


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:43 am
Original Link

@Sentient
Okay, then use this example:

“you shouldn’t babyproof your home because babies will just know what sharp corners do and avoid them? Does he say to hand them a running chainsaw or a handful of knives because the baby will just KNOW that they’re sharp and not touch them?”


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:44 am
Original Link

@Keyser
Nothing in that quote goes against biology. It goes against flawed experiments that give flawed results that don’t hold up infield.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 9:52 am
Original Link

@kfg
“Nonetheless peahens respond to the sight of the tail (even absent a peacock), because that is how they have been socially conditioned across the generations. Insert runaway feedback cycle here.”

Fully agree with this. This is what’s happening now that we have mass media to push social conditioning from the 1950s on (or whenever TV was in every home).

But like scray says: the wide variety of body types of men means height/muscles weren’t selected for or we would all be giant buff dudes.

“But that runaway endpoint began with a purely biological imperative, which became socially enhanced – biologically.”

It’s not the feathers themselves that are attractive, it’s what the feathers signify (high likelihood to survive/replicate). Otherwise you could take a pile of feathers and lay them on the ground and female peacocks would just start rubbing their peacock vaginas on them if it was the feathers themselves that were attractive. Just like girls don’t go to the bank and take out $1000 and lay it on the floor and grind with it and just like they don’t want to fuck the gay buff dude in drag or with bad subcomms.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:02 am
Original Link

@having a bad day
“bc his look is in conformity with the narrative of what society says is ‘attractive’… = so he SHOULD have those positive TRAITS… so, society ‘informs’ her expectations (she infers the positive bc of the conformity) that he actually does have those TRAITS… the actual ‘subcomms’ in play are the information stream from society… so, they are there after all…”

This. Thank god you’re here I feel like I’m in an asylum lol

“in the non-attractive guy’s look, she uses the inverse of that idea to infer that THAT guy does NOT have those positive TRAITS (she infers the negative bc of his ‘non-conformity’ to the ‘attractive’ standard)…and that’s also based on the ‘subcomms’ she gets from society…”

This. That’s why she assumes Tyler won’t have those subcomms when she sees him. But if society told her her entire life that a guy that looks like Tyler will be the highest-value mate in all of the world, she would get hard nipples around Tyler.

Just like girls fainted for the Beatles and Elvis who weren’t objectively the hottest men in the world but all their social conditioning from the media and pinging off other girls etc told them those guys were the highest. And just like NOW girls look at the Beatles back then and are like “ehh, they’re cute I guess?” because the media’s push of what’s “sexy” has focused on the big jacked dudes.

Your math example is a good example too. I don’t know how many different ways to explain what’s a pretty simple concept. You don’t go digging through pig poop for diamonds because you have no social conditioning that tells you there’ll be diamonds in it. But if you heard fairy tales growing up about pig poop having diamonds, and you heard your friends found diamonds in pig poop, you might do a little digging when you’re at the farm.

This is common sense.

“in the absence of a personally displayed subcomm (positive or negative), girls will attribute positive traits to ‘conforming to the narrative’ looks = attractive… and girls will attribute negative traits to the ‘non-conforming to the narrative’ looks = not attractive…”

This. I don’t know how many times we can say this and have it still go over heads here.

“they are a response by the girl to the subcomms communicated to her by YOU… WRT society programming/standards… based on your conformity to that society’s standard of ‘attractiveness’… for all the reasons we have already discussed…”

This. This is a “free gimme IOI”, it’s just a reward for fitting the socially conditioned stereotype of what’s likely to have the ACTUAL attractive traits that make her nipples hard.

@Rollo
“Why do babies / children prefer sweet flavors over bitter or sour ones?”

So you’re not going to answer my question about knives and babyproofing sharp corners? Just gonna dodge around it just like the looks questions? lol

No one is saying babies don’t have taste preferences. You’re saying that “since things that look like candy taste good to babies, they find all candy delicious” without accounting for it being the TASTE of that candy that’s attractive to them. They don’t bite into dog poop expecting it to taste like candy because they haven’t learned that “things that look like this will have this taste”.

“When you are in a physically dangerous situation your adrenaline gland pumps and you go into fight or flight mode.”

No one is saying that doesn’t happen. What we’re saying is that you don’t KNOW a saber tooth tiger IS physcially dangerous, until you LEARN THAT. You aren’t born KNOWING that. That’s why babies will go up and poke a dog in its eye and shit, because it doesn’t KNOW the dog can rip it’s arm off yet.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:14 am
Original Link

She has no idea (or doesn’t care) that she’s supposed to be scared of these cheetahs/lions and has mastered the subcomms of not being prey. Because she was living in the bush where she gained enough social conditioning and reference experience and understanding of the subcomms to do this.

But all the comments shit a brick over what she’s doing in this video. Because WE all “know” we should be scared of these things.

Where’s her fight or flight when she’s stepping toward the cheetahs, Rollo?


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:16 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Yes, you go and babyproof the house because things like antifreeze taste sweet.”

So the kid KNOWS that the blue liquid in that bottle will taste sweet? Or does it put EVERYTHING around it in its mouth and when it puts the antifreeze in it it TASTES it and then LEARNS that it tastes sweet and continues to drink it?

“We also teach kids to eat vegetables because we know that left to their own devices the kid will prefer a doughnut.”

And yet in other cultures kids are taught that sugar is just a treat at the end of the meal or once in a blue moon. Whereas in our culture we watch Homer do this:


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:19 am
Original Link

Look at this kid’s amazing fight or flight, it just KNOWS this 300lbs gorilla is dangerous:

She has NO IDEA she should be afraid of that thing. Because she hasn’t been socially conditioned to know it can obliterate her effortlessly. When she grows up and LEARNS through SOCIAL CONDITIONING that that was a dangerous situation, she’ll watch this video and go “holy shit haha I was retarded”


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:22 am
Original Link

“What you guys are suggesting is blank slate-ism. That the only reason good sub-coms are ‘good’ is because they have no intrinsic value beyond what MTV and pop-culture commercialism have inculcated into society.”

No we’re not. We’re saying the reason good subcomms are good is because they are the most likely to give her the best chances at her offspring being protected and her being capable of surviving. It all goes back to the S/R stuff, but we’re saying the muscles THEMSELVES don’t cause high survival/replication these days, but Hollywood is still pushing the social conditioning that they DO so that’s why girls are still looking at that math formula instead of the other one.

“What I’m saying is that culture is contextual and the only reason that conditioning is effective is because there is a nature to the machine that’s being conditioned.”

We’re not saying there are no biologically hardwired things that are attractive. It’s just that those things are NOT muscles/money/etc. They’re the INTERNALS, the subcomms.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:23 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Still not answering the premise. Why does the kid prefer the sweet taste to begin with?”

DUDE. NO ONE IS SAYING the kid doesn’t have a preference for the sweet taste. You’ve gone down that tangent on your own making wrong assumptions about what we’re saying.

We’re saying the reason that kid drinks the antifreeze is because he LEARNS that it triggers that “sweet taste” trigger he enjoys. NO ONE IS SAYING HE DOESN’T HAVE THAT TRIGGER. That’s what “preselection” and “confidence” etc are, those are those diamond core traits that are attractive.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:24 am
Original Link

@scray
“it’s fucking daffy how this point keeps somehow sailing past everyone on the other side of this discussion.”

I can’t even comprehend what’s going on. We’ve stated the exact same stuff like a hundred times. I’m starting to think this is an elaborate April Fool’s joke.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:33 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“And yet, why would the social conditioning exist that would teach a girl to fear a giant gorilla? Because enough humans were killed by them to cause that fear.”

Yes. Exactly. That’s social conditioning.

“Ones who didn’t and didn’t pass on that fear were eliminated from the gene pool.”

No you can’t make that logic leap lolol or that kid would be scared of the gorilla. That’s totally illogical. That’s like saying your baby will just KNOW that you shouldn’t touch the 3rd wire from the left on some fuse box in your garage because you touched it and learned that. wtf??

“Thus, we developed the cognitive capacity to learn from near misses.”

So we LEARN.

“So we come back to sub-coms, what is it about good sub-coms that make them intrinsically good enough to be taught to be valued?”

To quote me one second ago: “We’re saying the reason good subcomms are good is because they are the most likely to give her the best chances at her offspring being protected and her being capable of surviving. It all goes back to the S/R stuff, but we’re saying the muscles THEMSELVES don’t cause high survival/replication these days, but Hollywood is still pushing the social conditioning that they DO so that’s why girls are still looking at that math formula instead of the other one.”

Are you just fucking with me or what lol

“What is it about those sub-coms that register as being survival beneficial?”

Because they hit the biologically hardwired triggers that know that shit is beneficial, the triggers that we are SAYING **ARE** THERE, but are not MUSCLES, they’re CONFIDENCE, PRESELECTION, etc


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:40 am
Original Link

@kfg
“Likewise, no one on “the other side” has said that sub-coms don’t matter.”

Subcomms are what’s attractive. The muscles themselves are not.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 10:46 am
Original Link

@kfg
“What are the sub-coms of a sneaker?”

Is it a sneaker that can impregnate a girl?


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:12 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Why would Hollywood continue the long tradition (as in millennia long) of socializing that the presentation of muscularly defined men (not Jacked or Yoked, even the Haselton study confirms that) should represent the goos sub-com ideal?”

The same reason you don’t sell antifreeze at your ice cream stand. Because you know your audience believes that antifreeze tastes bad.

The same reason you’ll put a fireman on the cover of your future novel instead of a skinny or fat guy. Because under the current social conditioning that’s how you make MONEY.

You STUDY the red pill and we can’t even convince YOU of the blatant endless evidence that contradicts what you think, you think some random Blue Pill chode in Hollywood is going to be like “oh I think I’ll just resist all my social conditioning by snapping my fingers”

“Why did the ‘Dad Bod’ thing not become the new ideal when that was introduced?”

Because we have SHITLOADS of people who are socially conditioned to believe the opposite ridiculing the notion, and women ping off their environment for how to feel. Their environment consists of more than a blog article. It consists of a lifetime of social conditioning.

“Why would Hollywood insist that this standard be the one to convey the potential of good sub-coms,”

Because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

“even if all the guys displaying them just stand there with their shirts off?”

BECAUSE SOCIAL CONDITIONING MAKES GIRLS ASSUME THAT THOSE GUYS JUST STANDING THERE NOT ACTIVELY DISPLAYING BAD SUBCOMMS, MUST HAVE GOOD SUBCOMMS. How many times do we have to repeat that??


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:12 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Why would Hollywood continue the long tradition (as in millennia long) of socializing that the presentation of muscularly defined men (not Jacked or Yoked, even the Haselton study confirms that) should represent the goos sub-com ideal?”

The same reason you don’t sell antifreeze at your ice cream stand. Because you know your audience believes that antifreeze tastes bad.

The same reason you’ll put a fireman on the cover of your future novel instead of a skinny or fat guy. Because under the current social conditioning that’s how you make MONEY.

You STUDY the red pill and we can’t even convince YOU of the blatant endless evidence that contradicts what you think, you think some random Blue Pill chode in Hollywood is going to be like “oh I think I’ll just resist all my social conditioning by snapping my fingers”

“Why did the ‘Dad Bod’ thing not become the new ideal when that was introduced?”

Because we have SHITLOADS of people who are socially conditioned to believe the opposite ridiculing the notion, and women ping off their environment for how to feel. Their environment consists of more than a blog article. It consists of a lifetime of social conditioning.

“Why would Hollywood insist that this standard be the one to convey the potential of good sub-coms,”

Because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

“even if all the guys displaying them just stand there with their shirts off?”

BECAUSE SOCIAL CONDITIONING MAKES GIRLS ASSUME THAT THOSE GUYS JUST STANDING THERE NOT ACTIVELY DISPLAYING BAD SUBCOMMS, MUST HAVE GOOD SUBCOMMS. How many times do we have to repeat that??


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Attraction? Yes. Arousal, possibly, but the creative capacity is still subject to the social conditioning that what the guy creates has status value”

Remember solipsism. If I pass a girl’s shit-test with wit/humor, she assumes that because SHE felt a spike of attraction when I passed her test, that OTHER girls feel that same attraction, which creates a feedback loop after you pass a handful of shit-tests and she creates her own preselection in her mind.

“When we talk about looks and the sub-coms women expect from a particular look we’re focusing on the AF side and ignoring how those sub-coms affect the BB side of Hypergamy.”

No, now you’re trying to move the goalposts. We are still talking about sexual attraction and have been from the start.

“i can simply hijack that natural desire for social status and input WHATEVER I WANT as the focus of that desire…..”

Exactly. Like I say, we are manipulating the environment in that moment to socially condition the girl to believe that the traits WE HAVE are the highest value. When she goes back to watch Hollywood shit she’ll go back to thinking muscles indicate high value. But around us she’ll think the things WE HAVE indicate high-value and compare other men AGAINST the things we have. That’s why girls with WAY better looking/taller/jacked/rich orbiters will still choose me over those guys, because my strong frame that she pings off and falls into, conditions her to believe that what *I* have is the most attractive shit, and those guys don’t have what I have, so they come off lower value.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:17 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Attraction? Yes. Arousal, possibly, but the creative capacity is still subject to the social conditioning that what the guy creates has status value”

Remember solipsism. If I pass a girl’s shit-test with wit/humor, she assumes that because SHE felt a spike of attraction when I passed her test, that OTHER girls feel that same attraction, which creates a feedback loop after you pass a handful of shit-tests and she creates her own preselection in her mind.

“When we talk about looks and the sub-coms women expect from a particular look we’re focusing on the AF side and ignoring how those sub-coms affect the BB side of Hypergamy.”

No, now you’re trying to move the goalposts. We are still talking about sexual attraction and have been from the start.

“i can simply hijack that natural desire for social status and input WHATEVER I WANT as the focus of that desire…..”

Exactly. Like I say, we are manipulating the environment in that moment to socially condition the girl to believe that the traits WE HAVE are the highest value. When she goes back to watch Hollywood shit she’ll go back to thinking muscles indicate high value. But around us she’ll think the things WE HAVE indicate high-value and compare other men AGAINST the things we have. That’s why girls with WAY better looking/taller/jacked/rich orbiters will still choose me over those guys, because my strong frame that she pings off and falls into, conditions her to believe that what *I* have is the most attractive shit, and those guys don’t have what I have, so they come off lower value.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:20 am
Original Link

@Andy
“I think the looks guys are assuming that in the hunter/gatherer days only the physically strong survived. It’s just not true”

In a zombie apocalypse I would have grunts doing the physical fighting etc FOR me. Just like the dude who creates a society in all the zombie movies isn’t always the biggest jacked guy, he’s just the most charismatic dude who knows how to work social dynamics.

@Rollo
“rather what creative intelligence implies on a subconscious level.”

It implies better odds of their offspring surviving.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:20 am
Original Link

@Andy
“I think the looks guys are assuming that in the hunter/gatherer days only the physically strong survived. It’s just not true”

In a zombie apocalypse I would have grunts doing the physical fighting etc FOR me. Just like the dude who creates a society in all the zombie movies isn’t always the biggest jacked guy, he’s just the most charismatic dude who knows how to work social dynamics.

@Rollo
“rather what creative intelligence implies on a subconscious level.”

It implies better odds of their offspring surviving.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:24 am
Original Link

@scray
All of what you just said lol We teach guys to have charisma. There’s a reason EVERYONE around Russell Brand falls into his frame and why he was getting laid before he was a celebrity and it’s not because of his height lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:24 am
Original Link

@scray
All of what you just said lol We teach guys to have charisma. There’s a reason EVERYONE around Russell Brand falls into his frame and why he was getting laid before he was a celebrity and it’s not because of his height lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:43 am
Original Link

@Harrison
“Where do you think he’d be right now reading this thread, without people here arguing that his looks don’t actually hold him back, if he didn’t have men telling him to stop whining, let go of the ego and that it’s entirely up to him to change?”

It doesn’t even matter. It’s not about helping guys or a pride thing. It’s literally the things the looks matter crowd is saying are WRONG lol Like, even if that knowledge somehow set guys back I would still be having this discussion because all we care about is the truth about how attraction works.

@Sentient
NO ONE IS SAYING THERE AREN’T BIOLOGICALLY HARDWIRED RESPONSES TO SHIT LIKE STUFF JUMPING AT YOU TO CLAW YOU TO DEATH. We are literally SAYING that women have hardwired attraction triggers to subcomms that you can pro-actively flip. FML it’s like talking to a wall.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:43 am
Original Link

@Harrison
“Where do you think he’d be right now reading this thread, without people here arguing that his looks don’t actually hold him back, if he didn’t have men telling him to stop whining, let go of the ego and that it’s entirely up to him to change?”

It doesn’t even matter. It’s not about helping guys or a pride thing. It’s literally the things the looks matter crowd is saying are WRONG lol Like, even if that knowledge somehow set guys back I would still be having this discussion because all we care about is the truth about how attraction works.

@Sentient
NO ONE IS SAYING THERE AREN’T BIOLOGICALLY HARDWIRED RESPONSES TO SHIT LIKE STUFF JUMPING AT YOU TO CLAW YOU TO DEATH. We are literally SAYING that women have hardwired attraction triggers to subcomms that you can pro-actively flip. FML it’s like talking to a wall.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:46 am
Original Link

@Sentient
That guy jumping out at the kid is threatening his survival/rep so he reacts to it instinctively. Subcomms trigger survival/rep (aka they = winning as scray puts it). Muscles, according to social conditioning, indicate a high likelihood of having those good survival/rep subcomms.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 11:46 am
Original Link

@Sentient
That guy jumping out at the kid is threatening his survival/rep so he reacts to it instinctively. Subcomms trigger survival/rep (aka they = winning as scray puts it). Muscles, according to social conditioning, indicate a high likelihood of having those good survival/rep subcomms.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 12:02 pm
Original Link

@Sentient
“Of course he does. It is not conditioning.”

No one is saying it IS conditioning. But if he were to then be scared of his dad (aka the muscle, aka the visual of the cake), that wouldn’t be because his DAD is inherently scary biologically, it would be because he’s LEARNED through his CONDITIONING that his dad *REPRESENTS* things that are a threat to his survival/replication.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 12:02 pm
Original Link

@Sentient
“Of course he does. It is not conditioning.”

No one is saying it IS conditioning. But if he were to then be scared of his dad (aka the muscle, aka the visual of the cake), that wouldn’t be because his DAD is inherently scary biologically, it would be because he’s LEARNED through his CONDITIONING that his dad *REPRESENTS* things that are a threat to his survival/replication.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Original Link

“Freak shows exist because freaks appear freakish.”

Which comes back to social conditioning/reference experience. Look at these freaky white people and that freaky drone, what freaks:

@Sentient
“and so it goes.”

You are lumping EVERYTHING everyone does into one category. We’re saying there are things that are biologically hardwired and things that are not.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Original Link

“Freak shows exist because freaks appear freakish.”

Which comes back to social conditioning/reference experience. Look at these freaky white people and that freaky drone, what freaks:

@Sentient
“and so it goes.”

You are lumping EVERYTHING everyone does into one category. We’re saying there are things that are biologically hardwired and things that are not.


YaReally
on May 18th, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Original Link

@scray
“it’s so off the mark that it’s just pretty much like lol some people get it some people can’t i guess”

I honestly have no idea how to get what we’re saying across at this point. It’s so logical and simple and they’re just going off on the most random tangents and avoiding questions and counter-evidence to their point to avoid the blatantly obvious conclusion that goes against their conditioning.

It’s like watching Stormtroopers shooting everywhere but the actual target lol

I have legitimately never encountered this kind of logic resistance before. In the PUA community we just know this stuff from going out, it’s demonstrated every night in the field. A guy like Tyler would just laugh that this is even being debated.

Would legitimately love to see what half these scientist guys say when they see hundreds of hours of PUA infield and how they would explain what’s consistently going on through their theories lol


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 1:23 am
Original Link

@kfg
“I have not seen anyone here claim that game doesn’t work.”

No one is saying that anyone here is saying game “doesn’t work”. This hasn’t been about “does game work” in 10+ pages. This is about “muscles = attractive”

@Blaximus
“is there a significant difference in picking up girls/women at a bar, club or function, and just picking them up wherever they happen to be?”

In terms of what you trigger, no. The same SUBCOM triggers (confidence, assuming attraction, preselection, social proof, leading, good eye-contact, etc) are all the same.

But there are differences mainly in the external situation and for the guy himself, these are the objective good/bad points:

– there’s a lot of stuff that makes it easier like no loud music, no competition, she’s not really EXPECTING to get hit on so she generally won’t have a bitch shield up, it’s a bit of a “romantic movie moment” to her to meet a guy during the day, she doesn’t have friends around to worry about judging her and trigger ASD, you can get away with being a lot less sexual, etc All of that stuff helps make it easier

– the problems are on the guy’s end mainly…who’s often going to feel a lot more anxiety when he doesn’t have liquid courage to rely on, he’s in an environment that ISN’T “social by default” (people go to a bar EXPECTING to interact with other people, VS approaching a girl who’s on a walk with her mom or some shit) so he feels less like he has permission to be loud/expressive and less entitled to hit on her, he feels that because it’s daytime he can’t say or do sexual things so he’ll often put himself into an asexual friend zone category, he thinks it’s “impossible” to fuck a girl off a daygame approach so he ejects from girls that would’ve fucked him and just gets their phone number or whatever instead, there’s less hot girls walking around during the day in most cities that aren’t New York or Vegas etc so he has more trouble keeping social momentum going since he can spend 5-20 minutes looking for a new girl to talk to and get inside his head during that time, because the girl isn’t dressed as sexual he treats her as more of a “good girl” when she’s not ACTUALLY a “good girl”, etc

– Girls at the bar generally have bitch shields up because they KNOW they’re going to get approached by unattractive men (they’ll often reject guys without even looking at them because they get into a “NOPE JUST NO ONE TALK TO US WE’RE TRYING TO GET TO THE BATHROOM” zone if they get hit on by enough lame guys and are drunk etc) and they’re done up hotter so they FEEL higher on the SMV chart and act as such. Booze can fuck the girl’s ability to comprehend what you’re saying up (which is annoying to me because I spit a lot of verbals Russell Brand style, I stick to the generally sober girls personally). There’s way more environmental competition for her attention, like the DJ playing her and her GFs’ favorite song and they drag her off to the dance floor, guys get more ballsy when they get liquid courage in them so you have more AMOG competition to deal with, the volume of the music can be hard to communicate over which makes it tougher for guys who haven’t gotten to the point where they can rely on their nonverbal subcomms, girls get barraged with texts/matches from their orbiters, exes, new guys on dating sites, other guys from last weekend or earlier in the night etc etc because everyone is out and looking for booty calls, drama gets way overexaggerated in bar environments (the thing that annoyed that girl wouldn’t really bother her during the day but drunk in a club she’s literally in tears crying about it lol), if you’re leaving the bar at last call with the girl you’re going to have a bunch of orbiters/AMOGs to deal with, she’s rarely out by just herself so you’re probably going to have to engage a group of girls or a mixed set (possibly with orbiters) and all the drama etc that comes with that

(there are also lots of GOOD sides to doing nightgame, like the reward is girls done up hotter on your dick, it’s easier to build preselection/social proof in an enclosed environment with tons of people around, you can gain a ton of reference experiences in a short time VS walking around all day looking for decent girls to open, etc)

So the actual attraction triggers pickup stuff is exactly the same. But the circumstances/environment can play havoc with triggering those switches in a nightclub.

But on top of that it the GUY’S internals are different too: If you BELIEVE that girls at the bar are all sluts that are easy to fuck, what do you think that does to your subcomms? You’re going to be much less hesitant to approach them, you’re going to assume attraction, you’re going to assume success, you’re going to be more sexual and more sexually aggressive/dominant/leading, you’re going to be more likely to try to pull the trigger and make out or pull them from the bar, you’re EXPECTING other guys to get out of your way and not be competition, etc etc

Whereas a guy who believes that girls at the bar are going to be hard to get because he’s intimidated or whatever, is going to be more hesitant to approach, he’s going to assume he won’t have attraction, he’s going to be less sexual, he’s going to be less likely to pull the trigger, he’s going to EXPECT more competition and put more value on other guys (because someone told him looks matter) etc

That’s why I send guys to Chaturbate, where normal average everyday girls like the girls you see all around you, are shoving giant dildos up their ass and riding crazy vibrator machines and shit. To help guys understand that girls LOVE sex/masturbation/orgasms and WANT to fuck, to help them improve their subcomms and pull the trigger when they’re infield, whether it’s daygame or nightgame.

You, Blaximus, would probably do just fine in either environment because you have solid internals/subcomms and views of women and sexuality.

“So when you guys ” go out “, is it exclusively bars and clubs?”

No we sarge everywhere. What scray means when he says you need to be anonymous to sarge is that it helps for legitimate cold approach sarging for the purpose of increasing your skill level…if you walk into a bar where everyone already knows you and you know all the girls, you’re doing Warm Approaches not Cold Approaches because your value is already starting at some high level to the girl and you already have social proof and comfort etc so while you still end up flipping the same triggers to get her sexually attracted and get the lay, a lot more of the work is already done for you so you don’t get as much practice at the actual “this girl has no idea who I am and I have no social proof or anything to rely on to make this easier” hardcore Cold Approach skills.

Most Naturals run their game at venues they go to regularly and they use a ton of social proof (knowing the staff, knowing other male and female customers, etc) to raise their value and then open a girl who’s seen all that and is radiating green light IOI’s at them and call that “gaming her” when really they’re doing a very Warm Approach, not an actual Cold Approach, and a lot of those exact same Naturals will freeze up completely if you put them in an environment where they don’t know anyone and they’ve never been there before and don’t feel comfortable etc, because you’ve taken away all their crutches. ESPECIALLY if you also take away booze and they’re used to drinking too.

But no you can do pickup literally anywhere at any time. We have guys going up to families in restaurants in the daytime to try to pick up the daughter and shit lol Personally I prefer to stick to the nightlife because I ENJOY the nightlife scene in general, it’s fun to me and I like girls in dresses strutting around more than girls in hoodies with no makeup during the day and I LIKE the competition etc But if I become sick of the bar scene down the road, I’ll switch to doing daygame, and when I get sick of that and am an old fucker, I’ll just do social circle game because it’s the easiest.

“Even that shit is risky… ask Siegfried and Roy.”

That’s kind of the point of the discussion. What’s the difference between when those guys get mauled and when this chick doesn’t? If this chick gets mauled, what will be the differences in her behavior that caused that? Why will those cheetahs eat you and me but aren’t eating her? Is it just magically random? No. Do we just ignore what she’s doing (and what countless other “animal whisperers” do)? No, that’s not really science.

So we have to drill deeper and look at “why does THIS person trigger the hardwired biological response in the animal to kill them while this other person (or the same person moments ago) doesn’t?” and that’s where we get into subcomms and the whole “if you run from the animal it’s going to tackle your ass just because you’re ACTING like prey (subcomms), whereas if you step toward it it doesn’t know what to do because everything is scared of it and it assumes from your subcomms of not being scared that there’s a reason you’re not scared and it leaves you alone or even runs away”.

And then we learn how to teach people to have those better subcomms, which is all that girl and these guys are doing:

It’s very very simple why these things happen when you understand subcomms. That’s why we can’t just ignore subcomms and how they trigger those biologically hardwired responses.

@Rollo
“Run down a list of bad sub coms and good sub coms and I will show you how each of those behaviors and/or their accompanying mindsets are intimately linked to evolved survival traits.”

YES, we all AGREE on this. SUBCOMMS indicate survival/replication traits. That’s WHY they’re, themselves, causing hardwired “I want to fuck this” responses in girls.

“You’ve already confirmed that looks, facial symmetry, body habitus, etc. convey the potential for good sub coms which in turn denote the potential for survival benefits – ergo good sub coms are attractive.”

Yes, okay, good, stay on this path now, we’re on the same page here.

Now just follow this to its natural conclusion without going on crazy tangents: “Good subcomms are attractive”. What does that MEAN?

That MEANS that muscles THEMSELVES are not “attractive”, it means that, according to social conditioning which has pushed the image of “muscles = potential for having those subcomms that indicate good survival benefit” (based on our history where yes a lot of times having physcial strength DID matter), muscles indicate that a guy is likely to HAVE (in the absence of demonstrating otherwise, like in a photograph (and even then it depends on his body language etc in the photograph or a guy standing 100% motionless not interacting with anyone)), good subcomms, which are attractive, and that high probability of having those good subcomms is what triggers the biologically hardwired nipple hardening and panty soaking.

Is there ANY part of this ^^^^ statement that you disagree with?

“We also know that women practice a Hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy to secure the best genetic potential with the best provisioning / security potential in a mate. (Or have we come to throwing that entirely out of Red Pill awareness since it’s all socially preconditioned and women will fuck ligers and dogs?)”

I’m not throwing it out, it’s just completely irrelevant to the discussion of “is it the muscles themselves or the subcomms that are attractive”. You’re trying to say “well okay MAYBE you’re right, but only if it’s for Beta Bucks not Alpha Fucks see AF relies on looks so there you go we’re still right” which is still inaccurate. We’re talking about sexual attraction. So yes, we are talking about triggering sexual responses for Alpha Fucks, aka the nipple hardening soaking wet shit you saw the male strippers (who have AMAZING subcomms) trigger because we’re explaining why those guys trigger that response but the buff gay dude singing britney spears DOESN’T trigger those reponses even though he’s built too.

“It’s no fucking coincidence that cultures across history all have similar masculine ideals”

Yes because in HISTORY, having muscles really DID increase your/her survival/replication chances. That’s our point. That that shit stopped being relevant BUT media/hollywood/etc just kept perpetuating that even though a Steve Jobs is probably a lot better for survival/replication now than some jacked dude in a ghetto these days. But we have lifetimes of social conditioning pushing the narrative that Steve Jobs isn’t sexy and a jacked dude is sexy, because that narrative is based on history where that was generally the case.

“Samson, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, and many other mythos from culturally independent societies, all existing long before Hollywood, all have similar archetypes for an idealized masculinity, why is that?”

Because in those societies, at that time, those physical traits really DID indicate better survival/replication because shit was more violent/physical back then.

@sentient @scray
“Because your examples either are contradictory or fail to refute the premise that there is a biological basis for attraction.”

“NO ONE SAID THERE WASN’T ONE.”

This lol I’ve said this a thousand times to Sentient but he and Rollo seem determined to keep arguing that we’re saying there’s no biological basis for attraction and no hardwired triggers. Which is not what we’re saying at ALL.

@Rollo
“Oh bullshit. GTFOH you’re gonna just dismiss the findings of over 20 years of research”

Yes, we will dismiss BAD RESEARCH. Just like every time you post these Harvard self-survey “look at this picture, are you wet?” studies that show absolutely nothing and then try to cram them into your biases. Those aren’t actually demonstrating anything except giving guys who don’t go out ways to confirm their socially conditioned biases.

We HAVE to call out bad research and ignore it, especially if newer better research (like what we’re gathering infield in all this infield video) indicates different. That’s the point of science.

Apparently 1 in 1 women is being raped on college campuses every 25 seconds and the wage gap is oppressing women, because a shitload of people are using BAD STUDIES to base their conclusions on. Are you going to go against 50 years of feminist theory and studies Rollo????? But THESE studies fit your social conditioned view so THESE ones are all legitimate to you even though we can pick them apart and demonstrate why self-surveys about photographs is a flawed experiment.

WE aren’t going by studies, we’re going by OBSERVABLE INFIELD HIDDEN CAMERA EVIDENCE that all of us can look at an analyze recording instinctive human reactions. That’s worth a THOUSAND shittily designed experiments by guys who don’t understand attraction in the first place.

Like scray says “you want to do science, do it right and stop IGNORING things that flatly contradict what you ‘know.’” We are collecting data that flies in the face of that shit, so yes, shit has to be thrown out or updated and new studies have to be done to explain what we have ENDLESS hours of infield footage demonstrating.

“Why are you even posting here? For all it matters if women will fuck dogs it also disproves every tenet of RSD too.”

It does no such thing. It backs up what we’re saying: that girls instinctively respond to subcomms like dominance, sexual assertiveness, physical manhandling, not being able to control them, assuming success/having entitlement to their bodies, etc:

Those girls are having biologically hardwired responses to what the dogs are doing (subcomms like dominance, sexual assertiveness, physical manhandling, not being able to control them, assuming success/having entitlement to their bodies) and it’s VERY likely that a bunch of them get wet/excited in the moment from it which is why they’re laughing so hard as their triggers all spike through the roof.

@kfg
“Check out the sub-coms on this hot hunk:”

And what do they picture in their head when they’re using that cucumber? Do they picture the buff gay guy singing britney spears? He has muscles and muscles themselves are attractive so they must picture him singing to them as they fuck themselves lol

@scray
“your kneejerk reaction that this HAS TO BE THE TRUTH that there must be some objective ‘look’ isn’t anything in defiance of the FI you allegedly hate — it’s part and parcel.”

This is the surreal part of this whole thing. You’re literally perpetuating the FI and sending men on wild goose chases with this Rollo lol

But just like we’ve been doing since the start, we’ll fix these guys who come to us all frustrated that they aren’t getting laid by the girls they want after they get built, because they didn’t fix their subcomms, and we’ll train them to go hit the bars at 30+yo to collect the reference experiences and build the internals they SHOULD have been building in their 20s before they read “muscles = attraction” and wasted all that time chasing the external rat race not realizing that it’s the internals that matter.

But it sure would be nice to save those guys some time and frustration and depression by just putting them on the right track from day one.

@keyser
“They make it look like they get ALL the women , all success and no failure.”

This has been disproven SO MANY times. Someone else even TOLD you about me posting Julien rejection videos in the thread. You are 100% just making shit up.

“90% of the women they show in their videos, are all average looking women.”

lol ok, tell us more about pointy elbows.

@hank holiday
“I wasn’t really pushing boundaries. I’ve done all the stuff in the FR before, including drinking a girl’s beverage without asking. I’ve also stolen their other items before, lol. One girl was wearing at hat so I grabbed it on put it on my hat. Then I went around to people talking about how cool I was now that I made this new hat fashion.”

lol awesome. Now the question is: can you do the same thing with the same level of “I can get away with this, and this is funny to me so who cares if she gets mad” entitlement to your personal 8s, 9s, 10s? THAT’S when you’ll be pushing your comfort zone/boundaries if this behavior is already something you’ve done before with lesser girls.

“You CAN open them and get into a convo, but it takes a lot of energy to reach that hook point where they want to continue talking to you.”

Gotta learn Group Theory and how to hook them. Mystery has stuff on Group Theory and Julien has a lot of stuff on reaching the hook point. In that scenario, where they’re all friends and are there to hang with eachother, you’re going to have to do a lot of getting group approval and bringing value to the whole group (disarming orbiters with crushes and overly protective guys (this is where you have to do Julien/Todd’s stuff of making her choose YOU instead of you choosing her, cause they can’t interfere as easily if SHE’S the one choosing to keep talking to YOU vs YOU trying to hold her attention), including the girls friends in your conversation with her so she doesn’t feel like she has to talk to you OR them or has to neglect her friends (being rude) to talk to you etc). So it’s a bit tougher, no lie lol but the tools are laid out for you and it’s just collecting reference experiences infield from there.

The problem with most guys is they approach a group looking to TAKE value, they want one of the girls in the group so they don’t engage the whole group just the girl, the girl is forced to choose between them and the group (and will usually pick the group because it comes with a lot of social pressure/judgement if she doesn’t etc), the guy approaches with the mindset of trying to get the girl away as fast as possible instead of the mindset of joining their group for the evening and not worrying about getting the girl till later, etc

“I tend to only really do one thing when I go out.”

The more you go out the more you’ll internalize a lot of these things and then when the moment calls for a little jerkboy game you’ll just naturally pull it out and then get back on track toward the pull. That’s why it’s important to go out at this stage in your development, even to just have a 20 min convo with a 5. View this as a years-long process.

“I don’t judge, so I pick up things from everyone. Just like I learned a lot about islam from the muslim girl.”

This is one of the things I like about sarging. Meeting people from different walks of life and learning things from them…little trivia bits of info, looking at their mindsets and how they came to be that way, etc etc It’s rare that someone doesn’t have ANYTHING to offer when you have the rapport skills to help bring it out of them and don’t show judgement.

“Next time I will take yareally’s advice and pivot on a dying interaction to get into new sets with girls. Its just with the 5, the only people at the bar at that time were myself, the 5, and the bartender. Soooo, no one to pivot TOO.”

Right, my pivot advice is for when there’s someone around to pivot TOO lol If you really wanted to get hardcore you could go for a walk with her TO an environment that has girls and then use her as a pivot to engage those better girls and ditch her, but that’s kind of cruel to her (wasting her time and making her think she has a chance then ditching her for hotter lol) Julien would do that kind of thing though.

“Yeah, seen that before. Its just clicks more now that I have personally experienced.”

Which is why we harp on hitting the field. :) Gotta EXPERIENCE it. Your brain wants proof about what will happen, not promises about what would happen.

“Focusing on game over girls tends to help me a lot.”

Tyler’s frame back in the oldschool days was that you’re walking into a pickup experiment lab. It’s not about getting the girl it’s about experimenting in your pickup lab and seeing what reactions you get and what happens etc. A mindset like that can help take away the pressure and outcome dependence and turn it more into a fun “let’s see if I can do THIS” game where you might lose the girl, you might not, but your real reward is the knoweldge you gain.

“Very true. I always learn a shitton from all my interactions with girls that last over a minute or so.”

I never regret a night out, but I always regret nights I stay in.

@hank holiday
“Everyone seems to agree on 98% of things, but we’re bitching over the 2% that there is disagreement.”

That 2% is important. It’s literally the basis for half of pickup concepts and the difference between guys wasting their time chasing externals that don’t matter and ending up missing out on developing the subcomms that DO matter. It’s a big deal.

@viavitae
“If women are allowed to breed with whomever they want free of concerns over provisioning, its reasonable to think the distribution of phenotypes will change”

That’s basically the situation we’re in now. And girls are fucking anyone who triggers their hardwired attraction triggers with subcomms. That’s why they aren’t fucking the buff gay dude singing britney spears and that’s why they’re happily fucking Tyler and Julien and scray and myself etc

“That there is no hard definition of looks or physicality, it’s all socially programmed?”

Basically this. What’s attractive looks-wise is socially conditioned. Thus the flat-head shit in other cultures, the lack of caring about bad teeth in some cultures (like Japan where people get surgery to purposely fuck their teeth up https://www.tofugu.com/japan/yaeba-crooked-teeth-in-japan/ because over THERE the social conditioning is that it’s cute) while in other cultures like LA we’re getting white veneers and shit because OUR culture conditions us to think perfect teeth are more attractive.

“Does that count for men too?”

Men are wired differently. But even then, social conditioning can play a role…the guys in those african tribes probably think their women are hotter than an LA blonde. Black dudes seem to love big booty chicks which is probably a cultural conditioning thing, I have buddies who love skinny shapeless girls and buddies who love a super curvy hourglass etc so in my mind the effects of hardcore social conditioning on men’s preferences are open for debate/analysis (though there seems to be a lot more pull toward specific ratios etc). But I don’t really care what men want to fuck so it’s not something I’ve gone into in-depth because it doesn’t really have any relevance since we know men are visual and women read erotica about guys with amazing subcomms and guys who fit society’s socially conditioned stereotype of what’s likely to have subcomms (so the 50 Shades guy is a rich jacked billionaire because right now in society that’s what the women reading it have been socially conditioned to assume will have good subcomms).

“Like they don’t youth and hotness over accomplishments and experience for social reasons only?”

I’d say with women it’s more what constitutes “hotness” that’s up for debate. Guys don’t seem to really care about accomplishments or social value with women lol but my buddies all have different preferences for looks/personality, though they all fit within the same range of “ya I’d probably tap that”. To me the 1-10 scale guys will pretty much all agree up to around 7 or 8 and then from there it becomes each guy’s personal preferences of what consitutes a legitimate 9 or 10.

“Is there no AF/BB dualistic mating strategy?”

I’ve never said AF/BB doesn’t exist. We are talking about triggering hardwired sexual attraction aka alpha fucks in this discussion.

“If so, is it just a modern reaction to the rule changes and not some ancient thing?”

Not sure what you’re asking.

@Bromeo @Rollo
“The only evidence they have is “but look at all the hours of infield footage” LOL”

If your assertion is that “things always work X way (aka muscles = attractive and triggering hardwired hardening nipples and wet pussies)” and we have ENDLESS hours of infield footage showing that things DON’T always work that way (buff gay guy singing britney spears, death row full of jacked dudes every weekend who don’t get attraction/laid, etc), and ENDLESS hours of infield footage showing that things work the OPPOSITE way (skinny little PUAs triggering hardwired sexual attraction), then your theory is wrong and has to be re-evaluated and our evidence trumps your armchair theories and badly designed studies over the last 20 years.

This is common sense.

@Blaximus
“Rollo and scray are seeing the same things from different perspectives.”

Because scray, myself, Tyler, etc put our dicks in <25yo girls in 2016 and Rollo doesn't anymore and hasn't in years. That's the difference. Rollo is using data from guys who also aren't out there putting their dicks in <25yo girls in 2016 to form theories that our infield experiences/data/video footage/etc ACTIVELY disprove/counter.

"Rollo, is pro scientific data to confirm those things we all see."

The experiments are flawed. Just like asking female commenters "Well what would YOU do?" is flawed. These experiments aren't actually studying what they SHOULD be studying because the guys designing them don't even understand the basics of attraction/sexual dynamics, the knowledge/understanding of which has skyrocketed since the PUA community formed. None of these guys is watching Tyler's infield. None of these guys are looking at the subcomms on jacked guys getting shot down on Keys to the VIP. None of these guys is going out and experimenting with having good and shitty subcomms and sticking their dicks in <25yo pussy in 2016.

That's not a sleight on Rollo, that's just LOGICAL OBSERVATION. Unless he IS fucking the promo girl he posted a pic of, in which case hey let's hear the Lay Report up to where your dick was inside her. But he's not fucking her, he's just extrapolating the flirting she'll do with him into what he thinks would happen and viewing it solipsistically through his personal experience lens, while we're looking at data across the board from the entire PUA community and any other infield of any guy seducing women in general.

I'm going to trust the observations and infield footage of the guys who are FUCKING that promo model and who fuck a BUNCH of promo models LIKE her, in 2016, over the guy who used to fuck girls a lot back in the day before he understood anything about subcomms/attraction and could ojectively observe what he was doing and he hasn't fucked them in 10+ years despite enjoying the IOIs/flirting or the guy who makes theoretical observations about how that girl PROBABLY would respond to hypotheticals in badly designed experiments.

"scray is pro life experience to the point where it will disprove some of the science."

Pro-LITERALLY OBSERVABLE RECORDED INFIELD FOOTAGE, HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF IT THAT ANYONE CAN LOOK AT AND OBSERVE THE SUBCOMMS IN THEM.

"Sometimes neither perspective can absolutely nail down the source of an action with absolute 100% certainty"

What we are saying is that the current theory of "muscles = attractive" is ACTIVELY and DEMONSTRATABLY wrong. You can come up with other theories, that's cool, say aliens are causing everything, it doesn't matter to me as long as what your theory says doesn't contradict what we have TONS of infield footage/experience demonstrating.

@scray @Rollo
"i don’t think you grok how damaging this stuff can be to people just getting in the game, esp when it’s unproven. this is the kind of shit that chews people up and sends them to sluthate or turns them into an eliot roger, man…."

Yup. Because Rollo doesn't teach pickup, he teaches prevention of getting fucked up, and damage control/recovery after guys are fucked up. So "muscles = attractive" doesn't really fuck with anything he teaches/explains.

But guys like Tyler and myself are the ones that these guys who chase that complete side-tangent path and end up frustrated that they're good-looking but still not able to get laid, IF they don't go the Elliot/sluthate route, come to us desperate and fucked up and confused and depressed and we have to get them to understand WHY their muscles aren't getting them laid like guys pushing your "muscles = attractive" narrative said they would, and THEN finally put them on a path to fixing their subcomms the same way I'm having to do with scribblerg as he struggles to believe he has value without his former looks.

Except we could've SAVED them YEARS of frustration if we just looked at the VERY BLATANT INFIELD FOOTAGE EVIDENCE of how muscles DON'T matter and how SUBCOMMS are the thing those guys should be focusing on. The more you focus on "muscles = biologically hardwired to trigger nipple hardening pussy soaking responses" the more guys you're going to have coming to you as fucked up damage cases down the road when their wife they bought a Tesla for or stayed jacked for, cheats on them, because they didn't know about subcomms or that subcomms are what are attractive.

@Rollo
"Oh look, some new infield videos to add to the evolutionary debate:"
:):):) perrrrrfect choice. Let's ACTUALLY look at these instead of relying on your snarky completely shallow surface-level observation (you know, that drilling deeper thing I always mention), shall we? Pay attention now, you're about to learn about subcomms:

Skip to 56 seconds in:

This guy is with this girl and she’s into him right? But this OTHER guy comes up, and I’m not into dudes but objectively this other guy is more outgoing/social, more energetic, and like an inch taller, and also well dressed, good looking face, apparently charming etc.

Why doesn’t she switch to him? Or more importantly why if they replayed those exact same actions over and over again, would the girl NEVER switch to him?

Turn off the volume and watch their body language. The second guy is facing the first guy while the first guy faces away. The second guy leans in and the first guy puts his hand up and stops him. Who’s more reactive? Who’s reacting to who? The energy guy is yapping like a squirrel while the other guy spends half the interaction just staring off into space giving him minor amounts of attention and never faces him with his body. Half his responses are just one word or a shrug until he makes an important point.

THAT'S subcomms. That’s that 0.00001% in action and girls NOTICE that. That’s why that girl doesn’t switch to the other guy, because he’s 0.00001% more reactive to this first guy than this first guy is to him. In any interaction someone is always reacting to the other person, that’s just how human interaction plays out.

Most guys would look at this clip and go “that girl would take either one of those guys” but that’s because they aren’t looking at these subtle subcommunications that are telling the girl “stay with this guy”.

At 1:50 the second guy comes back and physically manhandles the first guy a bit and runs off and normally it would be like “oh he AMOG’ed him”, but the AMOG’ing isn’t based on what that second guy does it’s based on how the first guy REACTS to what that second guy does and as you can see the first guy gives no fucks and is unreactive to it. DEMONSTRATING SOLID SUBCOMMS.

Whoever reacts to the other person is lower value. Girls need to be able to spot this so they know they have the highest-value guy. That’s also why I stress a guy with GOOD GAME. The second guy broke the rules about being reactive and leaning in and shit (BAD SUBCOMMS) while the other guy held to the rules instinctively (GOOD SUBCOMMS). The girl doesn’t NOT switch to the second guy because he’s “ugly” or not dressed as well, she doesn’t switch because his game is weak and she can tell that the first guy is higher value and has better subcomms.

That second guy WILL get girls, if the first guy doesn’t interfere, but if you put a girl in the room and said “who do you put your money on getting the girl if these two guys go after her” my money will be on the first guy if they’re in the interaction with this same energy. If the first guy has too many redbulls so he’s too reactive or just got dumped so he feels insecure and not as confident/entitled (so he has bad SUBCOMMS) and you put him in a suit and the other guy is wearing a t-shirt and tired from fucking a model all night so he’s less unreactive and is putting out more high-value subcomms, and the video is shit like the first guy facing the second guy and leaning in while the second guy barely acknowledges him, then my money goes on the second guy, even though objectively speaking they’re both good looking dudes and the other guy has a suit. Because I know the girl will be reading their subcomms and that’s the shit that actually matters in-field.

The rest of those videos is just guys macking girls with no interference, nothing special and nothing that contradicts what I’m saying but lets all the guys who don’t go out blame those jerk good looking guys for why they can’t get laid.

But I’ll bet the guy running that site could never describe to you what’s happening in that little value-battle those two guys may not even realize they had in front of that girl and I'll bet Rollo didn't notice any of what I just wrote when he watched it or he wouldn't have linked it because it just provese what we're saying about subcomms being attractive.

And the reason the guy running that site will never look at those dynamics is because 1) he doesn’t go out, 2) he doesn’t go out and try to take girls off these guys, 3) he doesn’t befriend these guys and watch them fail and look for patterns and weaknesses in their game, and 4) it doesn’t fit his narrative that the sky is blue so he’ll dismiss the photos of an orange sky.

Your rebuttal? Or would you like to post MORE infield of guys with good subcomms getting good results that supports what we're saying? :)

Oh look, at 0:34 in the 3rd video on that site there's a much bigger guy behind the main guy and the girl is choosing the main guy OVER him. WOT'S GOING ON??? Ohhhhh the main guy has good subcomms and is expressing himself and confident sexual etc while the other guy is hunched over quietly stifled in the background getting a beer.

You can LITERALLY SEE IN THE THUMBNAIL for the first video, a taller good-looking guy in a yellow blazer with a drink up at his face looking around nervously (aka BAD SUBCOMMS) and then WATCH the video and see that guy be COMPLETELY INVISIBLE to the girl who's flirting with the guy with GOOD SUBCOMMS.

Did you even go look at that? Right now when you read what I just wrote? Did you go open that page again and watch the yellow blazer guy and watch the tall guy in the 3rd video?

Or did you not bother going to look because it doesn't fit your paradigm that looks matter and you don't want to see blatant counter-evidence.

If muscles/height/etc = attractive these girls SHOULD be ignoring this littler guy for the bigger ones. But they don't. The bigger ones are invisible to her when this guy is around, because the littler guy is actively demonstrating better subcomms, so they're getting turned on by him and the way he assumes attraction (trying to make out with the girl on the bus and not taking no for an answer, while a taller/bigger guy behind him chodes around in the background), entitlement, has confidence, good body-language, unreactiveness, etc

But please post more videos supporting that your theory is wrong, they're very useful and I can break down subcomms alllllllll day because this stuff is blatantly obvious when you know what to look for…and if you post enough of them we might actually get you looking at subcomms in them so we can have an ACTUAL discussion about how attraction ACTUALLY works.

Plz post the hulk bod VS dad bod self-survey interview next, where the dad-bod guy has bad subcomms and the hulk-bod guy who's PAINTED GREEN peacocking in public and fits society's socially conditioned stereotype of a guy who should have good subcomms (which is exactly what we're saying). Because I know you love these self-surveys and bad science lol


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 5:12 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“So you have a handsome, fit, muscular guy (with some Caliente level game) in set”

So he has good subcomms.

“and another guy (who may be slightly taller)”

Height = attractive, right? Since looks matter? So the girl should be switching to him. He’s clearly outgoing and extroverted compared to the other guy, he’s not standing in a corner or anything. So why doesn’t she switch?

“who is thinner”

So exactly what bodyfat % is the best? And what do you say about the bigger guys I pointed out (yellow jacket in video 1 and big white shirt guy ordering a beer behind him in video 3)? Or do we just ignore them because they don’t fit the narrative?

“(and maybe gay)”

And what makes you think he may be gay? His bad subcomms. Why doesn’t the girl switch? His bad subcomms that he’s demonstrating.

“and has bad game”

aka he’s demonstrating bad/unattractive subcomms compared to the shorter guy.

“comes in set and can’t pull. and this is proving something?”

It proves that this was a terrible example to show of “looks matter” when you actually understand subcomms and look for them.

“Week 7 Advanced Principles” of Tyler’s Hot Seat @ Home product (had to do some sneaky shit to find it, hopefully it gets pirated enough to be easier for everyone to find down the road) has him going through silent videos (holy shit he shows them WITHOUT audio??? but what do we focus on if we don’t hear audio…all that pesky subcomm stuff??) of him interacting with girls breaking down the subcomms going on. It’s all completely blatant and obvious what’s happening especially when he points it out.

He repeatedly asks the audience as he goes through the videos “how does this look like it’s going? Do I look needy? Do I look like I care about the outcome? How does she look? Who’s leaning in? What happens when she does this, how much do I react? Compare that to the last video where it didn’t go anywhere, what did my subcomms look like then? Was I showing sexual intent? Compare my eye-contact here with the last video.” etc etc and you see direct correlations in the girls’ attraction between when his subcomms are on point and when they aren’t. And yes, he shows bad sets and weak sets too, and the consistent thing every time is bad subcomms = bad result, good subcomms = good result.

Your guys’ lack of checking out the resources/content/teaching that breaks this stuff all down in-depth and explains it with massive infield footage analysis and literally teaches you how to spot subcomms and what effect they have etc is what will keep you clinging to your social conditioning and make discussions like this impossible.

I’ll link the vid when I can find it easier to get (right now it’s on some shitty foreign pirate site you have to sign up to), but it’ll probably just not be watched, just like all the other shit that explains what I’m saying, because god forbid we question 20 years of bad experiments testing off-base theories with actual hidden-cam infield video showing this shit in-depth lol


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 7:44 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“Refer to the first 6 words above”

“Caliente level game” = good subcomms. The other words don’t matter except that they mean he fits into the girls’ socially conditioned view of what a guy who’s likely to have good subcomms looks like. And he’s had a lifetime of that same social conditioning that’s told him to feel entitled etc to hot girls which is part of what’s contributed to his good subcomms. This is common sense.

“There is no argument that subcomms and game (game encompassing a broader set of actions than subcomms) will overcome any initial looks based attraction.”

There’s no initial looks-based attraction. There’s initial “likely to have attractive subcomms” attraction.

“We can disagree about the origin of looks based attraction (whether hard wired or socially conditioned)”

There’s nothing to disagree with. You’re wrong. This origin is important. This is the 2% disagreement that determines whether a guy wastes his time chasing externals that don’t matter or develops the subcomms that DO matter and actually ends up UNDERSTANDING attraction.

“because the net effect is the same, initial attraction”

The net effect is not the same. The guy with bad subcomms doesn’t get laid and ends up frustrated/depressed and coming to us for help years down the road (hopefully, or he ends up much worse-off).

“You yourself keep acknowledging that looks based IOI’s are real, then trying like the devil to deny you believe this.”

What part of the thing I’ve been saying over and over: “on Tinder, where guys can’t display bad subcomms (unless they have brutally awful photos of them being low-value), girls assume the better looking guy will have good subcomms because her social conditioning has told her to assume that” do you not understand?

“the “problem” is saying one thing, then saying 10,000 other things to try and negate the one thing.”

If you don’t actually understand the nuances of what I’m saying then I can see how it would look like I’m negating it, but I’m not, you just aren’t following closely.

@Andy
“Why do you care so much? Looks = social conditioning + subcomms. He keeps saying it over and over again, and you’re obsessed with the fact that it generates IOI’s? I just don’t get what the problem is.”

It’s surreal to me. Like talking to a brick wall. I’ve repeated the same thing a million times and we have all the infield evidence to show it.

@Harrison @Bromeo
““if it were down to sub comms alone, we would see both skinny and jacked pua’s dropping infield footage and we would be dissecting the interactions based on sub comms alone.””

You mean Keys to the VIP? or the dissection of Good Looking Loser a few months ago? or the videos just last week of Julien failing and dissecting his own failure? did you watch it with the sound off like numerous people said was eye opening?”

Exactly. Go watch every episode. Do your homework and then come back to the discussion. Otherwise you’re just arguing rocket science with NASA engineers based on having skimmed a book or two.

“Really? lol, you do realize that is a staged show produced on the comedy network?”

That’s cute. The “THEY’RE ALL PAID ACTRESSES!!!111 NONE OF IT IS REAL AHHHH!!” defense. Never seen that before. Any footage we show you that goes against your belief system will be thrown out as “OBVIOUSLY FAKE GUISE!!!!11” Next tell us they’re all drunk bar sluts and anyone could get them and they’re ugly and–wait let me dig out the giant list of excuses guys make when they don’t want to believe infield footage because it goes against their belief system…….

@fleezer
“under 20 does not mean 15, 16 or 17, so web puas cannot offer insight into something they have never experienced.”

Under 20 means under 20 and above the legal age limit.

“web puas are absolutely correct about subcomms/game being the driver – for girls that have aged OUT OF PRIME.”

Except that you think 12 is prime so…lol

“girls in their prime do you not fuck guys based on subcomms. it is not situational subcomms, social conditioning, or any other thing. and it most definitely is not frame.”

Girls is girls, sorry man. AWALT, attraction triggers flipped by subcomms are hardwired:

“it’s a joke to think that a 16 year old guy has frame”

Compared to their peers, some of them do have stronger frames, subcomms, etc. And if the girl is only really exposed TO that peer group, there you go. She doesn’t compare that guy to Blaximus, she compares him to his peers around her.

“why is 17 better? Two days ago I was standing in a room with 100 prime girls. then a hot and fit 22-24 year old entered. the kind of girl anybody would sarge. guess what? she looked like a fucking crone in comparison to all the others.”

Tell us more about her pointy-elbows.

“there is something magical about the bloom phase. cell division/renewal, hormones, something.”

Seems like legit science to me! I’ve met guys who would say the same thing about old cougar BBWs.

“everything rollo, roissy, ya say about game is true. when men are the prize. it is absolutely irrelevant when girls are the prize in that short window that sometimes lasts less than a year.”

It definitely doesn’t sound like you’re putting them on a pedestal, that’s for sure.

(I legitimately don’t care, I just like to bug you on your weird dirty ol’ Uncle Fleezer teahing a room full of 12yo’s magical bloom love shit…it’s creeper city to me, partly because I’ve been socially conditioned to feel that way and partly because I’ve been with a few “under 20s” and found most of the experience to just be annoying because they are still retarded at those ages and I personally like to be able to have conversations with the girls I hang out with. But you do your thing…you’ll come off a lot less creepy and be a lot less easy to make fun of if you drop the “their magical tight young pussies bloom and glow in the morning dew of their innocence” pedo-talk though)

@Forge
“Morning project: reinforce bedframe”

Bravo lol Well done man.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 8:00 am
Original Link

I made a thing because work is slow as fuck this week and this Hotseat footage is so good (I haven’t seen the whole program yet so I don’t recommend it yet) and it’s relevant to this looks/subcomms discussion.

Inspiration for the weekend, Tyler takes 3 girls off a better looking guy, step by step:

Full album of the full pickup with my breakdowns of the good/bad subcomms going on…give it a read Sentient and Rollo, maybe you’ll finally get what I, scray, Andy, HABD, Tyler, etc have been trying to tell you:

Drill deeper till you find consistent diamond core principles. Looks/muscles/money = attraction is not consistent. Subcomms = attraction is. Like I say, what if you didn’t have to “justify” feeling entitled to the hot girls? What if you weren’t bought into the socially conditioned value system and gay Harvard studies etc that told you “looks = attraction”. What if you understood that what Tyler’s doing and the subcomms he’s giving off ARE what’s attractive about him, and you could do this stuff consciously, competently, and understand why you get blown out and why you succeed and be able to spot other guy’s subcomms infield and know which ones were actual competition and which were harmless instead of assuming guys with looks will get attraction (meanwhile the Death Row good-looking guys go home to jack off alone)?

All it takes is a mindset shift to break out of social conditioning. And ideally red pill communities drilling deeper than the surface level and not perpetuating these myths about “muscles = hard nipples and soaking panties” and start promoting ACCURATE data that “good subcomms, like the good subcomms a male stripper has = hard nipples and soaking panties”.

I recommend everyone try going out this weekend without doing their hair or dressing in a plain t-shirt etc. Take away one of the externals you think is attractive and approach girls all weekend.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 8:03 am
Original Link

@Sentient
““Likely to have subcomms attraction” is based on look. What else could it be based on but an impression formed by visible observation of appearance? and it works on Tinder…”

It could be based on reputation, it could be based on observing how other people react to you, it could be based on interacting with you via texts, it could be based on interacting with you via a phone call, it could be based on seeing a huddle of girls around someone without being able to see who they are because they’re in the middle of it, it could be based on seeing a lineup lined up for autographs for a celebrity she’s never seen before, it could be based on seeing your body-language from behind, it could be based on hearing your vocal tonality from around a corner…

Want me to keep going?

Tinder removes most guys’ ability to demonstrate BAD subcommunication, and since there’s no such thing as NO subcommunication, girls will assume, because of social conditioning that says a good-looking guy is likely to have good subcomms, that the better looking guys will be more likely to have good subcomms and swipe them.

Very simple.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 11:32 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“What constitute good sub coms? Wait, don’t answer, it doesn’t matter, because women will fuck dogs and no one really knows, so just stay chipper and put out positive vibes into the universe and anything you want will be yours.”

Are you kidding? Good subcomms are shit like:

– confidence
– assuming attraction
– leading the interaction
– leader of men
– entitlement to engage her
– entitlement to be physical with her
– confident eye-contact
– laser/bedroom/sexual eye-contact
– confident body-language
– comfort touching her body
– comfort talking about or demonstrating sex/sexuality
– decisiveness
– comfort invading her space
– expecting good reactions
– being unreactive
– having a strong frame
– holding that frame when its tested
– passing shit-tests
– good neutral/breaking rapport tonality
– authoritative demeanor
– outcome independence
– not seeking reactions
– not seeking validation
– preselection
– social proof
– being expressive/emotive
– immunity to social pressure
– etc etc etc etc etc

Like, how do you not know this stuff? This is pickup 101. All of these traits are traits that 1) ALWAYS increase your attractiveness (whereas as the buff gay guy singing britney spears shows that muscles don’t always increase your attractiveness), 2) demonstrate that you have probably fucked girls like her or better which is why you have all those subcomms when you interact with her (whereas a guy who hasn’t fucked girls like her before will project bad subcomms because he won’t feel entitled, will seek her validation, will have worse eye-contact, etc etc), and 3) demonstrate you have high survival/replication value, probably have high T, etc etc, all good things that trigger hardwired attraction in women.

If you give a girl laser eye-contact, pass a shit-test and then cut the space on her (get your faces close together as you hold laser eye-contact), she WILL get nipples hardening and panties soaking. Because your subcomms are triggering her hardwired involuntary biological responses.

This is BASIC game, man. Like, day one of seduction school here. How am I having to explain this??

Social conditioning has taught her that a jacked/rich guy is likely to have a bunch of those subcomms, moreso than a Tyler, so when she has to choose based purely on looks, she’ll play the odds and go with the jacked/rich guy. But it’s not his muscles/money that cause that biological response, it’s his potential to have, or having, those subcomms that she’s hardwired to be attracted to.

“So what are good sub coms? Apparently they are anything that confirms why you got the lay, but even then, women will fuck dogs and no one ‘really’ knows.”

No, you and Sentient keep doing that Feminist style arguing where you go “oh what?? You disagree?? Well how do you KNOW??? I’m going to ignore every time you list it out FOR me and just exaggerate your position and then claim NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT IT’S ALL MAGIC” and flip the Monopoly board over.

All of the things I listed above are things that are VERY OBSERVABLE IN ANY VIDEO OF ANY HUMAN BEING, ESPECIALLY INTERACTING WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

This isn’t some woo-woo magic. Watch some infield/Keys to the VIP and watch for these things. There RIGHT THERE in front of you.

“So the good sub coms upon which RSD is based are entirely speculative”

They absolutely would SEEM speculative if you 1) don’t do your homework and I have to actually list them out FOR you (wtf), 2) don’t watch the infield and infield breakdowns I link regularly, and 3) don’t go out and look for this stuff in real life because you refuse to believe it exists or it existing would endanger your inaccurate world view.

“because we don’t really know what really turns women on ALL the time”

We DO know, that’s what we’re trying to tell you. But you don’t want to hear it because you’re fully invested in the looks/money paradigm the FI has set up.

“you and Scray really need to compare notes because how he’s subjectively coming to what define good sub coms”

Because he’s going out, he’ll come across them. I doubt he would disagree with any of the giant list I just made above and could probably add some more himself.

“(which still haven’t been concretely defined since this debate got started)”

That’s because we kind of assume guys on a red pill message board that talks about attraction regularly actually understand the bare minimum basics of seduction/pickup. But apparently we were wrong lol That’s why we’re all mystified that we have to even explain this stuff. How do you not know this??

“But even then, women will fuck dogs, as long as those dogs conform to what a sexy dog is as defined by Hollywood.”

Dogs naturally have a good handful of those subcomms I listed.

“because according to him there is no hard scientific proof for anything that corroborates what a woman’s ‘expectation of valuable genetic traits’ really are.”

What we have is a HUGE load of infield evidence from the last 15 years of pickup being widespread, showing us that VERY CONSISTENTLY the things I’ve listed above trigger hardwired attraction in women, and TONS of evidence showing that muscles/money do not. As soon as Harvard figures out how to run an experiment to test why women fuck Tyler, we’ll be happy to look at their experiment and pick apart whether its flawed or well designed. Maybe you should E-Mail them some Tyler infield to review?

@Sentient
“You don’t form impression on looks via text…”

No you form an impression of the guy’s SUBCOMMS via text. Because that’s what they’re looking for, to figure out if you have the subcomms of a high-value guy or not.

“I’m glad we agree that biological responses are hard wired and can also be modified [to differing degrees] via conditioning.”

I’ve never disagreed with that, you’ve misinterpreted what I’m saying if you think I have.

“Please save your time (I enjoy all the RSD stuff for the record btw) you are just planting more strawmen at this point.”

You can’t just call anything that shows you’re wrong “a strawman”.

“Read the sentence you wrote “takes 3 girls OFF a better looking guy””

I know you get a boner for semantics but he’s just a guy who happened to approach those girls. “OFF” doesn’t mean they were all fawning over him and sucking his dick. It means that he was engaging the group.

“That is the issue, initial attraction, how those 3 girls got with that chodey poor subcomming loser in the FIRST place, not that he would never lose them”

They were not attracted to him, despite his looks, they were engaging with him because he approached them.

“Please save your time”

I probably SHOULD save my time because you’re clearly ignoring everything I’m posting that you don’t agree with and aren’t actually looking at anything I’m putting up to explain how attraction actually works.

@scray
“they matter in the sense that they prime a woman to treat you and react to you a certain way because of social conditioning

the first sense is the one that matters and fucks most guys up because they end up believing that there is something fundamentally wrong with them on a deep level.

like, go out….

you’ll meet jacked dudes, rich dudes, successful dudes who are all broken as fuck inside by this external rat race.”

This. And a handful of them will be created by the red pill guys pushing “looks matter” when they don’t even know what a list of good subcomms looks like.

“hot women are desensitized to good looks.

a lot of manosphere guys really are focused in the 5-7 range with women, which is probably why they hang on to the ideas.

it’s not until you snag a girl who is more physically attractive than you are and you do it by being cooler that you really start to understand the kind of underlying forces at play.”

Maybe that’s it, who knows. Maybe these guys have pulled girls that are within their “looks range” (by social conditioning’s standards) and can’t relate to pulling girls that are WAY “out of their league” (by social conditioning’s standards, wouldn’t want Sentient to jump on semantics again by forgetting to mention that obvious bit). I can’t wrap my head around how guys studying/teaching attraction don’t understand this stuff.

@scray @Rollo
“first, your comeback to this is that they’re the ‘abberration.’ that isn’t true. as we have seen from the studies where women were ACTUALLY HOOKED UP TO ELECTRODES, the women got wet from pretty much anything.”

See that’s a decently designed study, because it’s not a self-survey and it’s not testing at a different time than “in the moment”, it’s testing actual responses in the moment. I’d love to see more studies designed like this.

@Rollo
“you’ll meet jacked dudes, rich dudes, successful dudes who are all broken as fuck inside by this external rat race.”

“Not unlike Mystery (still suicidal), Owen (with his two illegitimate children), Neil Strauss (who’s hawking this shit) or Tucker Max?”

1) scray is pointing out that guys internals/subcomms don’t get fixed by getting muscles/looks, which fucks them up

2) Owen seems pretty happy, dude runs a multi-million dollar company, has passed on his genes (“illegitimate children”? Really? Should he get married Rollo? Do you look down on guys who have children outside of marriage now? Have you been replaced with a Feminazi? Why are you shaming men for living outside of the Feminist Imperitive now?), lives in a mansion, has a shitload of well-connected high-value friends/networks, doesn’t drink smoke or do drugs, eats healthier than most of us, and walks around with a smile on his face helping thousands of guys change their lives. But ya, let’s go the character assassination route, just like Feminists…”I don’t like your message because it goes against what I believe, so let’s insult and judge the person giving the message” What happened to the whole “truth, regardless of where it comes from” thing?

3) the other guys were in the early PUA community which didn’t focus as much on internals/subcomms because we were still figuring out the external side of things. Now that we have more data/experience to work from, we understand the internal/subcomm side of things better and push guys to develop that inner/subcomm stuff so they don’t end up like those guys

It’s amazing to me how hostile and lashing out you are about having your beliefs about looks/money challenged by guys who are regularly stunting over your theories infield and can consistently explain how they’re doing it and why it works and link videos and in-depth breakdown explanations of it.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 12:16 pm
Original Link

@scray @Rollo
“which is why this whole discussion seems like the other side refusing to completely swallow the REAL red pill”

That’s basically what it looks like. It’s surreal to see the hostility. Like trying to get Blue Pill guys to accept AWALT.

“yes women will fuck dogs which is why i immediately laugh when ppl start talking about how innately picky they are, sorry. those two facts don’t go together.”

The consistent theme between fucking a dog and fucking a Tyler and fucking a Chad Thundercock (who DOES have all the subcomms he’s “supposed” to have) is the subcomms triggering her hardwired attraction triggers.

Very simple and consistent.

“it also would predict things like women getting off even if they’re raped — which happens — and the trauma they suffer is mostly about social norms and boundaries.”

This. What’s happening in a rape? A whole shitload of those subcomms I listed (like being entitled to physically manhandle her, being immune to social pressure/consequences, dominance, etc). Funny how many girls don’t even realize they were raped until their friends judge/shame/lead them into believing it.

“So your entire premise of what constitute good sub coms is entirely subjective to what your perceptions of women’s social conditioning is, thus RSD is selling sweet sunshine to loser Betas.”

You really need to quit exaggerating your point, it makes your argument sound ridiculous. Nothing we’ve said contradicts what RSD teaches. You and Sentient just apparently somehow don’t know what subcomms are because you somehow slept through day one of seduction school lol

“I don’t personally believe that, but that is your premise.”

You can believe anything you like. All that matters is what the field evidence shows. And the field evidence shows that “muscles = attractive” doesn’t hold up.

“And women will fuck dogs, but maybe we should wait for some infield video of a great dane pulling 3 girls off of Owen on the street before we confirm that?”

What would be the point, you’ll just say they’re hired actor dogs and all have pointy elbows and they’re outliers.

@Harrison
“Yea that’s why I was hesitant to pull back into the practical,”

For the record I do get what you were trying to say/do with the practical aspect and do agree, it’s just that right now the discussion is 100% about what’s ACCURATE more than feel-good stuff because we’re surprised we’ve run into such resistance to what’s blatantly obvious infield.

If what we saw infield contradicted what we’re saying and we saw that looks DO matter, I’d be one of the first ones to switch completely and say “nope, the field shows looks matter, get to the gym guys” because I want guys to succeed and handle this part of their life. I have no investment in a theory or method, it’s just what we see infield contradicts the current “theories” by guys who aren’t infield and don’t have the depth of understanding of pickup/seduction/game that we do (as evidenced by me having to list subcomms).

“Since we didn’t see their initial interaction, it’s impossible to tell how he got them interested in the first place. Are you saying it was 100% his good looks? Because even if he was *just standing there* he is giving off subcomms through his body language”

If you see the actual video and hear Tyler’s breakdown etc, you can see all the body-language stuff that shows the guy very clearly just approached them with his buddy and was just going with whatever girl was the most engaging because he has shitty unconfident subcomms, that’s how he ended up focused on the Red dress girl and why Owen had no problem opening the other two girls who were BORED with the good-looking guy and his friend and their shitty subcomms.

But it’s funny how Sentient goes RIGHT TO “SEE??? They were talking to him BECAUSE OF HIS LOOKS!!!!” Like there was no other possiblity in his mind of how that situation could happen. Says exactly how socially conditioned he is that he would assume that.

In my descriptions of what’s happening I almost FORGOT to mention that Tyler’s girl was taller than him and had to go back and add that in because it’s so irrelevant to me and I had to remind myself “oh ya, that’s a thing that these guys will think is important” lol

@quixotic
“Damn man thank you for posting that epic fucking breakdown of Tyler’s pickup on Yellow girl”

The actual vid and Tyler’s breakdown are excellent. I’ll try to link it when it goes up somewhere linkable.

“Haha poor Blazer. I have been that blazer dude many times and i have been the scumbag tyler while blazer dude stands and watches”

lol we all have been that guy. That’s why I lol’ed so hard and had to screencap his face when he realizes he’s blown out completely. That facial expression is SO PERFECT lol You can just read the confusion and FML on his face. I love it. I see that a lot when I’m doing my thing at the bar from the guys around me when I’m on fire.

“(albeit with less hot girls lol – that chick in yellow as smoking jeezus but I will get there if i keep putting in the work)”

The biggest understanding that Tyler had from day one was “I can do whatever these other guys are doing if I just learn to do what they’re doing”. There’s absolutely no reason you won’t get girls like that if you put in your infield hours and do your Field Reports etc

“I remember the first time i saw a guy who dressed worse than me, shorter, fatter do this “magical” game shit. Now i know its not magic, its observable and its repeatable. I’m sure my face was a lot like blazers: dumbstruck, angry, jealous.”

lol sorry dude you must’ve imagined that ’cause looks = attraction and those subcomms I listed are just magical unobservable invisible things so it was all just an illusion you made up in your mind. lol

“that Blazer would have been much better served if he had “stayed in his lane” as Julien says. Meaning blazer should have focused on making tyler compete against blazer in blazers’s world instead of blazer competing against tyler in tyler’s world.”

Right. This is big in the high-end scene when a guy like me (who obviously doesn’t belong there) enters it (I love dolled up girls so I love that scene). That environment and the people in it will try to suck me into their value system where I’m the bottom rung. So I have to go in with a strong enough frame that I suck THEM into MY value system, where suits are kind of stuffy, dolling up is kind of try-hard, being dressed chill/casual is much cooler and high-value, etc

“Problem is tyler is a wrecking ball of social value, tyler forces you to react to him.”

Exactly. The reason I can suck those people into my frame is because I’ve put in a ton of infield hours to develop a strong frame and resist social pressure etc Tyler is that x10000 and forces everyone around him to react to him. That’s why Blazer becomes invisible, because Tyler captures all the girls’ RAS and the Blazer guy doesn’t know how to get it back. That’s part of why I say a lot of good-looking guys rely on their looks and rely on no interference and rely on the bare minimum good subcomms to get by, so they’ll still get laid, as long as no one interferes. Blazer probably wouldn’t have even made it past the Red cockblock ’cause she was so intense and he looks like a Nice Guy.

“he is like a fire; you would look weird and try hard if you “pretended” you didn’t’ notice a fire”

lol exactly. It would be weirder NOT to fall into Tyler’s frame or NOT to react to it. And Tyler knows that. The thing is, in the actual video he’s VERY chill and laid back. The ONLY crazy move he does is when he picks the girl up physcially (which he just does ONCE to show that he’s comfortable touching/manhandling her, the ENTIRE rest of the set he’s laid back and barely even touching her and very chill and low energy and unreactive to everything).

But he knows the perfect TIMING to pull out a big move like that and blow the other guy out and spike attraction/temperatures in the group.

“That is why Blazer becomes invisible, he doesnt want to give tyler value and in blazer’s mind he is trying to figure out a strategy in the moment to compete against tyler.”

Right. And Blazer doesn’t have anywhere near the infield experience Tyler has, so while Blazer is trying to figure out a plan of action, Tyler is already 10 steps ahead leading the interaction toward his goal. That’s why a lot of my AMOG stuff is just stuff that freezes the other guy up (like saying/doing something weird/unexpected or asking a strange question or making a super offensive/sexual comment or putting the guy on the spot) and while he’s trying to figure out how to react I’m already in the girl’s face and taking up her RAS and anything he does would look reactive or trying to get into “our” group.

Like if I drop “you should fuck my friend here tonight, he’s got a huge dick, he fucked me with it last night”, the girl thinks it’s hilarious because it’s so giving no fucks, but the guy has NEVER heard any guy say anything like that in front of a girl before and it’s technically a compliment but it’s a fucking WEIRD compliment and while he’s trying to process “What the fuck just happened?? How do I respond to that??” I’m already capitalizing on the huge Buying Temperature spike the girl’s having and the guy is done.

“and your first instinct as blazer guy is to “compete” but the second you do, you are playing tylers game and tyler is a master of his own game.”

Exactly. :) You got it. Great read on the dynamics, well done. This is exactly what happens…Tyler has now set the frame and determined the value system for everyone in the interaction and forces Blazer into checkmate where anything he does is now inside Tyler’s frame.

“So what would you recommend blazer do (if he could get over his ego and admit tyler just AMOGed him)”

Buy some lube and tissues for later. lol But seriously tho:

“Join tyler’s frame and try to befriend tyler. Like you said tyler can’t fuck all 3 and tyler is a friendly social guy so would joining tyler’s frame and adding value (not just mocking tyler or being passive agressive) and being genuine “disarm” tyler?”

This would be optimal. “haha dude, you’re crazy, you’re awesome man!!” and give Tyler props and because he’s giving value, Tyler is VERY likely to literally HAND the other girls to him, because Tyler knows he’s got his Yellow dress on lockdown so he can give the other girls to Blazer and they can all have a fun night together as a group and go on an adventure and who knows maybe he becomes friends with Blazer. That’s win/win/win for EVERYONE involved. If I was Tyler and a guy reacted that way to what I was doing I would wingman him and tell the other girls “ya this is my buddy he’s awesome” and big him up to them.

“Trying to keep Red’s attention on Blazer by Blazer being interesting, high value in his own way and making Red come into Blazer’s world”

This COULD work if he was SUPER fucking fascinating but probably not…like he could step to his right so that Red dress is facing fully away from her friends, but she’ll still HEAR their Buying Temps spike when they shriek and giggle so she’s STILL going to end up engaging Tyler. If he could get her AWAY from her friends so she doesn’t know their Temps are spiking that could help but she’s the aggressive mother hen of the group so she’s not likely to leave her friends behind.

“3. Trying to get tyler to join Blazer’s frame”

This would be pretty much impossible lol With a dude who isn’t Tyler, like with another Blazer guy, he could probably do that and that would work (basically the higher-value guy is the one who’s reacting LESS to the other guy, so just get the other guy to react and/or qualify himself to you and you’ll come off higher value to the girls, I talk about making guys qualify themselves (in positive complimenting ways, not hostile) in various places in my archives). But ideally he should have the field experience to KNOW as soon as Tyler gets one of those huge spikes, that he should befriend him ASAP lol

Part of what Blazer was doing was following Rollo’s “looks matter” idea…he kept thinking that Tyler would run out of steam and the girls would come back to him, because he’s better looking than Tyler. But that’s because he doesn’t understand that Tyler’s subcomms are what the girls are attracted to and revelling in and they’re why they’re seeking his attention and basking in it and engaging him. So by the time he realizes “oh they’re NOT coming back to me…” he’s already inside his head and giving off brutal failure subcomms.

If a guy like Blazer came into my set I would LET the girls talk to him because I know from his subcomms that he’s not an actual thread even though he’s better looking than me. But if a guy like Tyler walked into my set I would befriend him FAST lol

“My answer is I would acknowledge reality: I would try to engage tyler and tell him damn man you are a social wrecking ball you have these girls eating out of your hand – teach me lol”

lol this is fairly solid, especially if you do it in a legitimately complimentary giving-value way. You could do this in a hostile way too, like a classic hostile AMOG routine was “wow man, look at all these girls you have, you’re such a pimp dude, what’s your secret?” but it’s kind of negative/shitty. You can do it to a Nice Guy and fuck with his frame but a cool guy will try to tool you for doing that and then it’s all just negative energy and a waste when, like I say, Tyler can’t fuck all 3 of them.

“I would not do it in an ass-kissing needy way, but its the truth.”

Right, that’s the right frame. Just a genuine compliment, without supplicating.

“A person with confidence would want to learn more and would not feel ego pain”

Right and that’s the type of subcomms a Tyler would read into and would reward you for being cool that way instead of butthurt reactive. A lot of times when you end up in a set with another cool/positive guy with game infield you’ll both recognize the other guy has good internals and a good postive frame etc and the girls don’t even matter anymore, you’re both more happy to have found someone on the same level/mindset and you end up becoming friends out of mutual respect.

“Like meeting ahhh-nuld would not make me stare and my arms and feel bad, it would motivate me and make me admire him and allow me to learn from him”

Mindsets like this are why you’ll have girls like Yellow dress on your arm one day.

“The part where he is on the bus is amazing it happens so fast like microseconds where he does kissy ducklips to slight eyebrow raise and then goes for the kiss and keeps on plowing til he gets it”

Ya most guys will just see the title “Handsome guy gets girls” and then fast-forward through it and see him makeout and just instantly link it going “SEE YAREALLY LOOKS MATTER” like I assume Rollo did. But when you understand subcomms you can go through a video like that literally almost frame by frame and see SO MUCH going on that explains why exactly that shit happened for THAT guy and not for other better looking guys. It’s balantly obvious. And when you get good enough at reading those subcomms that you can spot that stuff in realtime in real life when you’re out and about, you get to where Tyler is, where he knows the good-looking guy is irrelevant.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Original Link

@Andy
“smh… What are you defending blue pill ideals now? Or are money and muscles a red pill ideal? Marriage? Sigh… “Illegitimate” children… Come on.”

Mindblowing to read that here of all places. What’s going on??

@kfg
“I wonder what difference there might be that would allow women to fuck dogs, and yet still be picky about men.”

Dogs aren’t socially conditioned to not believe they deserve the girl who’s leg they’re humping when they’re horny. But a huge majority of men ARE. So while dogs don’t have all the subcomms a human dude does (like a dog isn’t making sexual bedroom eyes with the girl), the ones they DO have are pretty rock solid. Whereas a guy may have all the OPPOSITE versions of those subcomms because he’s been socially conditioned to not feel entitled, to not touch girls, to not make eye-contact, etc etc

“Is a puzzlement.”

No puzzle when you understand subcomms. It’s actually consistent/logical.

@scray @Rollo
“Hmmm, well that would imply that there actually ARE some universally evolved cues (sub coms) that, on a root level, indicate a better breeding potentia’

lol no one has taken the position that there aren’t……”

I have no idea how many more times we can actively say that NO ONE disagrees that there are hardwired attraction triggers to universal cues (the subcomms) that indicate that shit and cause the involuntary nipple hardening shit. It’s surreal that these guys keep just skipping over it every time we repeat saying it.

@Rollo
“Hypergamy you claim doesn’t exist (or hasn’t been concretely proven to your subjective satisfaction).”

Come on man, what is this? So now an Agnostic who says “we don’t know if God exists” is the same as an Atheist who says “there’s definitely no God”? wtf logic leaps are you making here to try to exaggerate our position.

All Scray is saying is there’s no real science showing Hypergamy is a thing. Personally, I’ve seen enough infield evidence collected by enough guys and enough of their experiences to fully be on-board with Hypergamy and it doesn’t contradict anything we’ve seen infield (and seems to support what we’ve seen), so for ME, I say it’s legit. But Scray is just saying there’s no definitive proof of it is all, the same way you’re saying there’s no definitive proof of what we’re saying.

@scray
“it’s as if I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said I said.”

This seems to be happening a LOT. It’s like they’re arguing with phantoms or something. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told I’m saying something I’ve repeatedly said the opposite of in this discussion.

“the VARIABLE is WHAT traits = winning”

It’s like there’s a flow chart for this and we are trying to get them to understand they have to INSERT A NEW BUBBLE in the flow chart between “muscles” and “nipples hardening” and in that bubble is “subcomms” but they’re determined to keep the flowchart from being expanded.

“so in a forest, you’d have a suite of traits that would = winning”

This is literally the basis of the War Brides mechanic. In that new environment the traits the new guys who’ve taken over have are what increase survival/replication so women adapt and those traits become attractive to them. How do you write an article as brilliant as that about such a drilled down subject and not understand what we’re saying?

@Andy
“Rollo, nobody has ever said that it isn’t possible to be so delusionally sure of your false, socially conditioned, FI value system that you can have good subcomms. I believe that YaReally even pointed out Trump as an example. The point is that the external attributes are NOT the common denominator…”

Right. That’s why if you can achieve topping society’s value system, you may GET good subcomms from it if you’re fully invested in it. Just like when I wear my lucky shirt I’ll walk into the bar with much better subcomms than if I wear the shirt that I have a bunch of bad memories assosciated with.

But it’s my good subcomms in the one shirt that are attractive and make girls get wet or my bad subcomms in the other shirt that make them repulsed, not my shirt itself. For someone who has nothing attached to that shirt it won’t do anything for him.

The problem with teaching guys to chase the rat race of looks/money is that there will ALWAYS be someone bigger and more jacked or in better shape than you, and there will ALWAYS be someone with more money than you, so you will end up comparing yourself to them and you can’t win in that value system…and even if you DO you’re stuck in someone ELSE’S value system instead of your own so you’re just the best at living up to someone else’s values.

And if/when you lose those things (like scribblerg is going through right now after a divorce and business troubles etc), your confidence/self-worth goes along with them.

Whereas if you base your internals on YOUR value system and the things you have ARE the highest value possible, then you will be confident and entitled regardless of your externals or what society says you should feel about yourself.

“It’s obvious that practically speaking hypergamy exists… I don’t really see how that ties into looks matter though…”

It’s another side tangent because they can’t seem to debate what we’re actually saying so they keep veering off into these things and saying we’re saying stuff that we’re actively saying the opposite of.

@Rollo
“Obviously my sub coms, appearance, internals, social proof, etc. was such that I was perceived as ‘high priority’ breeding potential and ovulatory influence be damned.”

That’s why I ignore the ovulation stuff you guys love lol You just flip her attraction triggers with your subcomms/game pro-actively and what day in her cycle it is won’t matter.

“But there was still a battery of triggers that cued these girl’s tingles in spite of themselves.”

Yes. Subcomms hit the hardwired attraction triggers. Which is what we’ve been saying from day one.

“There is still an evolved biological architecture that makes those sub coms valued or refused.”

No one disagrees with this.

“Every article on this list can be directly linked to hardwired sexual selection cues, but that’s only relevant if you accept that Hypergamy is rooted in a biologically evolved context.”

Like I say, I’m cool with Hypergamy. I’ve seen enough evidence and the concept doesn’t contradict anything I’m aware of infield and even supports it. Scray may want more proof, but I’m convinced enough to accept it and teach guys to be aware of it.

“Would you agree that these sub coms were attractive male traits in ancient Egypt? How about feudal Japan? Colonial America?”

Yup. All over. That’s what we’re saying. These are universal. Looking like Don Draper is not.

“Hypergamy didn’t start in the 1930’s when Hollywood began producing movies.”

Then it’s a good thing no one said that it did. What I said was that Hollywood continued and mass-swamped our social conditioning with the stereotype that muscles/money indicate higher likelihood of having the subcomms that will increase survival/replication.

“In fact, the vast majority of leading male actors relied on all of these sub coms in their acting well before Hollywood became what it is.”

Yup. And subcomms are the reason Russell Brand was getting laid before he was a famous actor.

@Harrison
“Lol this is the layer below ‘looks’, these are the attributes that ARE always attractive.”

This. That’s why I use the terminology “drill deeper”. Rollo is stopping at the surface level which gets inconsistent results (muscles/money often DON’T trigger those hardwired attraction responses), instead of drilling deeper to the consistent subcomms. This is what we’ve been saying since the start.

@kfg
“…just accept all the facets of game as fact because they just somehow work infield…”

“If they work infield it is a fact that they work infield. If it works infield and there is a theory that says it doesn’t, it is the theory that is wrong.”

This. What we’re saying is that your theory of looks mattering and muscles = attraction don’t hold up infield. We have TONS of evidence contradicting it. So your theory is wrong because consistent infield results/data isn’t wrong lol

Reality trumps theory, even 20 years of theory, just like 1 in 1 women aren’t being raped on college campuses and there’s no wage gap despite 50 years of feminist theory and data saying otherwise.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Original Link

@Rollo
“@YaReally, the next time Scray contradicts you (or himself) about how the biological basics of why sub coms are actually socialized cues for a socialized Hypergamy I’ll be sure to remind you of it.”

It would be great if you quoted him instead of just saying he’s saying something that he isn’t next time. And Scray may contradict me, he’s been in the game a different length of time than me and I study a lot more infield and field reports etc than he probably does.

But I don’t doubt that if he and I sat down and hashed out whatever sounded contradictory we’d come to agree on most of the same stuff but it’s difficult to do that when you’re clutching pearls flipping your shit and saying he’s saying stuff that he’s clearly said the opposite of.

Personally I don’t care why Hypergamy exists, whether it’s socialized or hardwired since the beginning of time. I lean towards hardwiring, but I don’t have any real basis for that other than you make a convincing argument for it and it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve seen reported back from the field and it makes a nice clean gift wrapped with a bow in my mind to assume it’s hardwired.

If scray wants more evidence, that’s his business, send it his way to check out. I’m on your side with Hypergamy being biologically hardwired unless the field proves otherwise.

But if the field somehow ends up showing specific data either way, then that’s the way I’ll have to go with because I deal with field data.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 1:22 pm
Original Link

@Rollo
“why sub coms are actually socialized cues for a socialized Hypergamy”

Also I don’t think anyone has said this. This certainly isn’t my position. The subcomms that flip those attraction triggers and trigger the involuntary wet pussy are hardwired. They’re that list I listed.

What girls view as potentially more likely to HAVE those subcomms is what’s socially conditioned.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 1:36 pm
Original Link

@Bromeo
“1. Skinny guy with no game vs jacked guy with no game (jacked guy has tons more potential)”

Yup. Because the socially conditioning for girls says “the jacked guy is probably likely to have the subcomms that indicate survival/replication value” and it says the opposite about the skinny guy.

“2. Skinny guy with game vs jacked guy with no game (skinny guy definitely has more potential but jacked will still pull on free ioi’s)”

Skinny guy wins, but jacked guy will get laid AS LONG AS NO ONE OR NOTHING INTERFERES and as long as he doesn’t display many bad subcomms (but being jacked doesn’t mean he’ll HAVE good subcomms, lots of jacked/rich dudes have shitty subcomms and don’t get laid).

“3. Skinny guy with game vs jacked guy with game (jacked guy dominates)”

lol no. It comes down to which guy, in the moment to moment, has 0.0000001% better game. Whichever guy reacts to the other in that moment is the guy that loses out.

“This is reality.”

No it’s your hypothesis. The first 2 are fine because they align with what happens infield. The 3rd is social conditioning armchair theory and doesn’t hold up infield.

“Not everyone infield is a pua like Tyler or Julien”

Doesn’t matter. What matters is WHY attraction happens. And it happens because of the subcomms not the looks themselves.

“all the infield footage is taking scenario 2 and putting the skinny guy on beast mode game level which paints an inaccurate picture”

Again it doesn’t matter. Because your 3rd example is inaccurate. And what matters is WHY attraction happens. And it happens because of the subcomms not the looks themselves.

“The advantage in all three scenarios is to be jacked at the base level then add game.”

Nope. Every hour you spend getting jacked is an hour you could be running sets like Tyler does and tightening your subcomms which trigger attraction and allow you to do what Tyler does.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 1:48 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus
“This is why I’m gonna go out to club/bar with my Friend.”

You will probably have a blast because you’re bringing your friend. You two will have fun engaging eachother which radiates good subcomms to all the girls around you and you will probably get “free gimme IOIs” from that but, before this discussion, you would probably attribute them to your looks instead of that list of subcomms that you’ll naturally end up unconsciously demonstrating.

“but there must have been a mass whale beaching that I was unaware of”

lol go to younger or higher-end venues where those girls know they can’t compete. Don’t go to the bar where the girls are “easier” to get (lots of guys will dumpster dive the uggo bars because they think they’ll be easier).

“but dancing must’ve put the scent of plankton and fish in the air because the Killer Whales kept coming”

Dancing confidently = radiating a bunch of those good subcomms I listed, which makes them shoot you free gimme IOIs.

“I need to see what’s up with the 20-something crowd…that weigh under 200 pounds.”

lol and here I thought black guys loved that shit.

“I have never tried to compete with phones and orbiters. This should be fun.”

You’ll probably be fine because of your internals and your past as a Natural etc. Like you don’t sound all fucked up or insecure or anything, you have solid attitudes towards girls in general. You’ll give off the type of subcomms/high-value that they’ll probably ignore their phones to engage with.

But pay attention around 1am to see how many girls in the room are looking at their phones lining up their booty calls for the night, it’s hilarious.

“But as far as older guys not fucking these chicks, I don’t plan to stick mah dick in any of them. I wanna see if I can get more of a pussy commitment than a phone number”

Bare minimum walk ’em out of the bar and get them to a diner for late-night food. That’s not cheating/infidelity, you don’t even have to make out with them or anything. That’ll give you a good perspective of what pulling these girls home from the venue is like and you’ll see their phones blowing up with orbiter chodes and Tinder chodes and shit.

“Unfortunately, I might have to squeeze some tits and asses for science.”

It’s a rough life, you’re a trooper lol

“She came out from behind the bar to dance with me after the third time I twirled an elephant on the dance floor.”

Notice that you’re doing what I said Naturals do: going to a venue you’ve been to before, with a buddy who makes you feel comfortable being there, and you have preselection built into the venue because that bartender will flirt with you again. So all of that stuff will help you demonstrate good subcomms to the room, which will cause free gimme IOIs and again in the past you may have attributed those to your muscles, but NOW you’ll understand why it’s ACTUALLY happening.

If you want to push it further, go to another venue halfway through the night, where you don’t know anyone, don’t bring your friend, make sure it’s a crowd you’re not comfortable around, tell yourself on the way there that you’re a loser and girls don’t like you, get a drink and hold it up at your chest protectively and stand in a corner with your other hand in your pocket and look around nervously and scan the room etc as if you’re a teenager in a mall who’s nervous about being about to steal something (shifty eyed hunched over body language) and don’t talk to anyone and if any girls DO approach you look around the room nervously as you talk instead of in their eyes and stutter on your words and speak in seeking-rapport tonality (where everything you say? goes up? at the end? like everything is a question?) etc etc and see what the difference in your results is.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Original Link

@quixotic
Unfortunately it’s very hard for guys to feel like a millionaire when guys post Harvard studies and shit pushing the FI narrative that they need to get more jacked/rich to “deserve” those millionaire girls. It’s all a mindset shift and rejecting a lifetime of social conditioning.

Also I can guarantee your fighting buddy has subcomms that could get him girls without the actual fighting. I have similar buddies that I’ve taught to tone down their bar fighting and focus on getting girls instead lol

@theasdgamer
““Muscles are attractive” really means “muscles +subcomms are attractive”. Of course, nobody disputes that muscles without subcomms are unattractive”

And subcomms without muscles are attractive. So ultimately “subcomms are attractive” is the only consistent rule and subcomms should be a guy’s focus. The other stuff is just side-tracking fluff.

And the original statement by Rollo was that his jacked stripper dudes were getting nipple hardening pussy moistening by just having muscles as if their subcomms weren’t what were causing that. But the buff gay dude singing contradicts “muscles cause involuntary nipple hardening pussy moistening” which means that theory is wrong. Because it IS wrong. Because good subcomms are what’s attractive.

“Funny thing is, today I’m lifting and Tuesday I lifted with a guy who is new to lifting.”

I 100% support guys lifting for the health benefits etc But focus on game first and understand the tradeoff and limitations of what muscles will actually do infield.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Original Link

@Rollo
You don’t have to exaggerate my position. You could simply explain to us why the buff gay dude singing britney spears doesn’t moisten pussies even though his arms are still attached to his body.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Original Link

@viavitae
Rollo was the one who originally brought up “oh yeah?? well if this subcomms thing we’ve only just started mass-teaching that would convince a Tyler to approach hot girls is real then why doesn’t EVERYONE BORN IN THE LAST 100 YEARS LOOK LIKE TYLER YET HUH??” in his initial freakout lol

Pretty sure we’re just saying “if you’re going to go by modern day examples of what we’ve evolved to, to base your argument off, then they pretty much support what we’re saying anyway” That’s why I brought up that we need 50+ years of guys learning game and rejecting their social conditioning that tells them if they don’t look like Chad Thundercock then they don’t deserve to approach hot girls, to see the REAL effects of this stuff.

Now if we could chop out Hollywood and the media’s social conditioning, we could find out faster, but we can’t realistically do that.

“I DO think that your infield experiences are worth a lot in this debate, but of course only you guys were there, so we are left with what you remember, what you did not filter out, your interpretation of events”

I’ve been literally posting infield videos of guys doing this stuff. Tons of it. We can all “be there” and see what happens and SEE which guys are displaying which of the many subcomms I listed out and girls reactions to them.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Original Link

@viavitae
“The cameras cannot point everywhere, even if they wanted to, it points at the PUA’s set. The footage is edited as it is an expository tool for the publisher. I’m not saying they are hiding anything on purpose. I’m just saying that the edited camera footage necessarily focuses its attention on what the PUA knows is key to the mission of picking up the target. The video should not, and is not going to catch all the data that may falsify the belief systems of those that made it. Its not a data collection tool, it’s an expository tool which knowingly in some ways and unknowingly in other ways represents a POV.”

You can just admit “I haven’t watched the footage” instead of making baseless accusations.

Here you go, no editing cuts in these:

I can post more if you like.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
Good stuff dude, props on getting back out there.

“I have a tendency to let conversations fizzle out even when I have attraction..”
“Would really really help my state to get laid soon though”

Connect these dots. Draw a line between them. What has to happen between the conversation where you have attraction and getting laid? How can you take the interaction from attraction to getting laid? It’s good that you’re engaging, but consciously think about what you need to do to get to the next stage of the seduction and plan some routines etc to help push it there.

“Something about them pings the “hooker” vibe in my mind”

If there was an event they could just be models hired by the club to make the place look like it has a bunch of hot girls. Even if they were hookers, there’s no reason not to engage them and get a funny story out of it (worst-case you’re preselected to the rest of the room). Props on opening them at all, a lot of guys wouldn’t have the balls to.

“I think you don’t need it – you don’t have it out now”

While lasering: “I won’t need it till I’m putting your number in it.” and then stare her down with a cocky grin.

Good job on pushing through the awkward fizzling out and pulling out a story. Think of the hook point as something you pro-actively lead the conversation towards, VS something that just “happens” by keeping the set going.

Good luck with your blitz, remember the fact that you’re heading out at ALL is more than most guys will do with their nights off where they sit around watching mindless passive Netflix and get high or play xbox. I’m heading out in a few hours myself to a kiddie nightclub lol

@viavitae
“Ive watched some of those vids before and try to absorb all I can from them. That does not mean that Julien and Tyler don’t have footage too boring and pointless to dilute their channel with. My point was that you cannot use this as some kind of dataset. It’s not mean to be.”

Of course we can use video of “girls reacting to certain stimulus” as datasets for “how girls react to certain stimulus”. Especially when there are 10+ years worth of hundreds of hours of infield footage out there and hundreds of thousands of Field/Lay Reports and we’re all heading out regularly and comparing notes.


YaReally
on May 19th, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Original Link

@Via Vitae
“I don’t think you can use video of girls looking at a couple of skinny nerds as datasets for whether women have a biological trigger for large, tall, powerful men.”

Watch every episode of Keys to the VIP and you’ll see plenty of large tall powerful rich men getting blown out because they have shitty subcomms and no game. Or you could go out and just befriend a bunch of tall jacked rich dudes and watch how much they ACTUALLY get laid and note the patterns in their subcomms when they do/don’t.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 6:10 am
Original Link

@Rollo
Gonna tackle this question?: “You could simply explain to us why the buff gay dude singing britney spears doesn’t moisten pussies even though his arms are still attached to his body.”

@redlight
“What is being argued here, very effectively by those who are currently fucking multiple women, is the key male attributes are not the physical”

Yup. There absolutely are attributes that are attractive and flip those hardwired involuntary attraction responses. They’re just not “muscles” or “money”. They’re the subcomms a level deeper.

@Via Vitae
“but I thought the debate was over whether women care about looks”

If women cared about looks then the jacked dudes on the show wouldn’t get rejected. If some of them get rejected and some of them don’t then there’s something else going on that determines whether the woman is attracted to them or not and, by simple logic, that thing by default CAN’T be looks or that result wouldn’t happen.

It’s the same shit as direct VS indirect game. Neither is inherently “attractive”, it’s the subcomms you have when you approach with them that are attractive (congruence, confidence, tonality, assuming a positive response, etc etc).

When you get two different results you have to drill deeper until you get to the diamond core principle that IS always attractive, which are subcomms like “confidence”.

@SJF
“Here the OP talked about tribes working together”

We are technically working together to uncover the truth of how attraction ACTUALLY works to create a stronger more accurate knowledge-base to teach future men to improve their lives and understanding of the world more efficiently.

“I think the discussion has been good, albeit working against the current of men’s sexual strategy.”

We can fight for years, as long as in the end the knowledge-base is accurate so that it can properly help men escape the FI conditioning some the TRP/Manosphere guys seem determined to keep men trapped in.

“It is quite difficult to follow the real impetus and ego-invested theses that are ongoing in these comments.”

I agree. We have no idea why Rollo Sentient etc are fighting this common sense and blatantly observable evidence so hard. But the fact that they keep resorting to character assassination (like comparing scray to feminists and Aunt Giggles etc and bashing Tyler for having “illegitimate kids” (wtf dude)) and side-tangents and avoiding answering questions like the one I’ll keep cutting & pasting to Rollo up above until he answers, gives me confidence that our point is very slowly being made.

“Appreciate your stuff as always. But don’t AMOG the group. ”

Look man, you gotta quit being such a Sensitive Sally. Any time I say anything you can even REMOTELY take as a personal offense, about anyone that you even REMOTELY identify with, you jump in and go on about how I’m AMOG’ing and being a jerk and then justify your lifestyle for 5 pararaphs when I’m not even talking about you, and what I’m saying isn’t even that offensive (even if the WAY I say it isn’t the most delicate), and you imply I have problems with your lifestyle or am demanding you stop writing about your lifestyle etc. Your sensitivity is painting me into some kind of asshole that I’m not actually being.

“I don’t give a shit if you don’t wan’t to bang my old wife. I do.”

NO ONE SAID YOU SHOULDN’T OR THAT YOU SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED OF WANTING TO lol

“But he is a Mini-Me in his ideology.”

WOW A SHORT JOKE, TONE DOWN THE AMOGGING SJF!!!! lol

“Last time I checked, I want to be on the same side of the debate with other men in the manosphere and on this blog related to red pill awareness and game.”

One side of the debate is wrong/inaccurate/not drilling deep enough. There’s no scenario where we’ll accept provably inaccurate information in the knowledge-base for the sake of holding hands and skipping along rainbows together. These inaccurate theories fuck guys UP. They send them down paths that are a waste of time, chasing shit that won’t actually help them, wasting years of their life and putting them through frustration, depression, etc until they either LITERALLY kill themselves (or others along with them), or reject the red pill entirely (sluthate crew), or (hopefully) come back to the community and look for the ACTUAL answers that they SHOULD’VE been given the FIRST time they came to the Red Pill community for help.

You may not like guys here disagreeing with eachother, but I don’t like seeing guys come to us saying “I’m jacked and rich but STILL can’t get laid, I don’t get it, I have all the attributes that society told me would make it easy to get laid and I still can’t get laid and I have to lie about it to my friends because they all wish they had the “Easy Mode” externals I have and THEY’RE getting laid and I just feel like a huge fucking loser because even with all these advantages I still can’t get girls and I have no idea what I’m doing wrong and I’m so depressed and frustrated with myself for being such a loser”.

“I call AMOG bullshit Strawman on that. Who are these guys that are fucking 5-7 women and not fucking girls that are more SMV attractive that them? Stop shitting on guys that you are trying to tribe with.”

We are trying to figure out ANY logical explanation for why these guys are denying what’s BLATANTLY obvious when you’re infield picking up girls that are “out of your league” because what we’re saying 1) isn’t complicated, 2) is pretty consistently logical/common sense, and 3) has MOUNTAINS of evidence infield to support it, while what they’re saying 1) doesn’t explain shit (buff gay guy singing not triggering attraction), 2) is them arguing shit that we’re actively saying the opposite of when they mis-state our positions and seemingly purposely don’t quote us so they can summarize our position in a silly way that we aren’t actually supporting, and 3) is contradicted by MOUNTAINS of infield evidence.

“That’s not me Bro.”

Then he’s not talking to you, man. This is what I’m talking about. Did Scray say “Hey SJF, your wife is an ugly 4, you 4-fucker!”? No lol If you’re fucking a 10 wife, that’s awesome, we’re all happy for you, just breeze past that part of what he wrote because it doesn’t apply to you.

“Cheap shot AMOG comment……..”

It’s NOT a “cheap shot AMOG comment”. It’s just ribbing a black guy about black guy stereotypes, because I know Blaximus is confident/interally grounded enough to lol at it (which he DID and then told his fucking funny buffalo antelope analogy). If Blaximus is offended, he can tell me he’s offended, you don’t have to be offended on his behalf…and I know he’s NOT offended and I knew when I typed it that he WOULDN’T be offended and I’m not even TRYING to offend him.

This is just how guys interact.

“The reason I ask is because I doubt your current convictions will be very practical when you are 50 years old.”

This doesn’t really have anything to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about field evidence and logic, not “convictions”. Saying gravity makes things fall to the Earth isn’t a “conviction” that we have to worry about being practical when we’re 50 years old.

“You don’t seem to respect KFG’s background or enigmatic aphorisms to your detriment. He is a wise motherfucker.”

Dude speaks like the Riddler. If he has a point to make he can speak more clearly. Being deliberately vague for the sake of seeming “wiser” just makes the discussion more difficult to engage in.

“He’s lived a thing or two and you steam-roll over his assertions.”

If the field proves what he’s saying wrong, then he’s wrong. Even if he was 1000 years old.

“And there is not a whole lot of 50 years olds’ that don’t wish 50 year olds’ would have told them the correct shit when they were 25 years old.”

As long as what they’re telling us holds up infield when pressure tested, cool, let’s hear it. But a whole lot of 50 year olds have a whole lot of bullshit theories and social conditioning and no longer accurate models of how the world works up in their heads that they give WAY too much authority to just based on “having not died in a while”.

All we care about is what holds up under testing.

“If we could cast a mold, I would suggest Blaximus’”

Blaximus is a boss. Even if I give him shit or disagree with him now and then, the dude has the internals that I WISH other men had. We wouldn’t even NEED these communities if guys developed the internals that Blaximus developed over his lifetime. Our discussions would be “guys how I STOP getting laid so much, I’m not getting any work done, fuck!!” “I don’t know, I was going to try to write a reply but now there’s a girl sucking on my dick getting in the way of the keyboard!!” lol

“Base on my life experience you are trying hard to argue something that older guys just don’t buy.”

It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t buy “gravity”. Gravity holds up under testing and there’s tons of evidence to support it and there’s no evidence and counter-evidence if someone says “gravity doesn’t exist” or “gravity makes things float up from the ground away from the Earth”.

We are educating the next generation of men who will one day BE the 50 year olds teaching 25yo’s, and we don’t want them teaching 25yo’s to stay locked in the FI socially conditioned value system rat race that WILL continue to fuck them up and WILL continue to result in men wasting their time and ending up disillusioned and depressed and confused.

“In other words I was failing to be fun and add value to the discussion.”

We’re not trying to be fun, we’re trying to be accurate about the knoweldge-base about how attraction/seduction/social dynamics actually work, so we can help men.

“Don’t forget to add value and be fun to tribal investments with men”

What if we post bikini pics at the end of each of our posts lol

@Via Vitae
The comet story was an interesting read, I didn’t know the details of how that all went down, I just saw the fucking insane “shirt-gate” controversy lol

“My point is that scientists cannot even admit a rock when they literally fall off it, so placing faith in the scientific establishment is not a cut and dried issue.”

That’s why we don’t care what studies say though…we know humans will bias shit all the time. I mean that first Harvard article Rollo linked was literally titled something like “Why are muscles so attractive?” Like wow, already decided your conclusion before doing your gay self-survey study, have you? That’s not science, that’s nonsense.

But infield footage, with no editing, from hidden cameras, gives us the most accurate information/data to go by because we can SEE people’s instinctive reactions to things. That still may not be PERFECT, but it’s a million times better than some Harvard dudes doing some self-survey logical study with girls, or some silly massively flawed study where “this girl was on her period and talked to the “asshole” guy for a longer period of time THEREFORE GIRLS WANT JERKS WHEN THEY’RE OVULATING”.

VS something like scray’s study (that Rollo has never actually addressed) where electrodes are set up to record girl’s instinctive reactions to shit. And even THAT we could probably find flaws in because the girls know they have shit hooked up and are being tested.

“Meta study is just a sketch concept anyway. Mix good sausage with bad to make better sausage? I don’t think so.”

Agreed. Just like being 50yo doesn’t mean your opinion/theory is right if you are working from flawed data/ideas to begin with, 20 years of studies don’t mean anything if those studies are flawed/weak and/or based on inaccurate assumptions about how shit works. Like I say, 50 years of feminist “science” has Obama telling people the wage gap exists and every mainstream news site talking about the every 10 seconds a woman is raped on college campuses bullshit. Having MORE stories based on that data doesn’t make it accurate…in 20 years that data will STILL be bullshit.

I THOUGHT half the point of Science was that you’re supposed TO re-evaluate shit if you get new/contradictory evidence, because I THOUGHT the point of Science was to uncover the truth about how shit works. But as is being demonstrated here, when you have a huge ego investment in a certain theory, a guy will fight tooth and nail to deny the evidence that his theory needs to be re-evaluated to account for the contradictory evidence.

I’m down with Scientific studies, bring them on, but only IF they can be designed in a way where we, understanding how this shit works, can look at the study’s methods and go “okay, THIS is a flawlessly designed experiment, there’s nothing here that would fuck with the results based on everything we’ve seen”. But like I say, which blue pill scientist at Harvard is going to design a study that accurately shows why a married woman will fuck Tyler in the bathroom of a bar on her girls’ night out? When that study is done, I would LOVE to see it and analyze it and pick apart how it’s designed to see if it’s solid or not, and I would LOVE if they came up with a solid way to test that and explain it.

But the science up till now hasn’t even know what it’s supposed to test FOR because these guys doing these studies don’t even understand how attraction works, they aren’t infield defying their own data doing what Tyler does, so why WOULDN’T they think “girls said they liked the muscular guy’s picture more” is a valid experiment.

Which brings me back to AGAIN asking Rollo: “You could simply explain to us why the buff gay dude singing britney spears doesn’t moisten pussies even though his arms are still attached to his body.” and hoping that he’ll try to answer it at some point so we can discuss how/why/where/if his theory isn’t able to consistently explain that and actually GET somewhere with the discussion instead of being misquoted/misinterpreted and inconvenient questions/evidence being ignored.

@SJF
“And that depends on the stage of women you are gaming. The <25 crowd fuckers rejects Rollo's tenets on the larger scheme of men's sexual strategy for a larger crowd of men. His is a larger scheme."

We reject inaccurate information. If Tyler himself was spouting stuff that didn't hold up infield, I would reject it too. And he would be the first one to tell me to, he literally talks about how we shouldn't even listen to him, that we SHOULDN'T believe him and that we should go field test it all for ourselves and see what our own conclusions are and look for consistent principles among them. 'cause Tyler comes from the same community I do where all we care about is the truth, for the sake of helping the next generations of men escape the FI.

@having a bad day
"i think the biggest issue/problem, is that the arousal cues are discrete ‘attitude’ patterns (for lack of a better descriptor, which by definition are ‘social’), which when sufficiently ‘clustered’ = alpha = sexual arousal in girls…, rather than physical ‘things’ like ‘looks/money/etc’… and that those discrete attitude patterns are the genetically passable alpha traits that a girl’s hindbrain/firmware would be triggered by…"

Right, that's why I wrote out the list of subcomms and am kind of mindblown that guys teaching shit about attraction don't know those things already. But those are the technical breakdown of stuff that to a Natural would just be "just be COOL, man" so I GET it.

Like Blaximus will look back on his "banging the office janitor chick for Pepsi Max (lol'ed hard at the bet being for of all things Pepsi Max lol)" and probably think the reason he succeeded with her was because of his height/looks since at the end she looked at his shoulders etc but if we could go back in time to that whole interaction from the start and put a video camera in the office and watch it frame by frame we would see a TON of the subcomms I listed being involved…Blaximus' mindset IN GENERAL from day ONE would have him radiating a lot of shit like confidence and not taking girls seriously and non-neediness and non-supplicativeness etc from the second that chick first saw him.

Because Blaximus isn't consciously thinking about this list of stuff, he's just DOING and BEING that list instinctively. But for the sake of the knoweledge base, we HAVE to get extremely technical with this stuff because there's a reason Blaximus with his looks has his co-workers falling overthemselves to fuck him while the Forever Aloner's at the MISC have the same level of looks but their co-workers ignore them.

Rollo was a Natural who was fortuante enough to internalize and solidify a lot of those subcomms early on (guys without at least some of those subcomms don't join sports teams or start a band playing on a stage in front of audiences and shit), so it looks like he can't relate to the idea that something he's just "doing" and doesn't think deeply about, can be deconstructed into such technical detail and pressure-tested for consistency. In HIS mind it's just "bro, I look good when I'm at the gym and my bottle model girls give me IOIs, so it's my looks". That's why I keep using the terminology of "drilling deeper".

"bc why WOULD her hindbrain think that a bunch of pua genetic ‘losers’ (lol) would be able to reverse engineer those behavior/attitude patterns through crowd sourcing and trial and error testing…lol"

lol it really is amazing. Hundreds of years from now when Harvard has finally figured out how to do proper experiments with this stuff and everyone is going "oh ya, this shit is genius" and they're teaching a YaReally study course at Harvard, they'll look back on what exactly PUAs were doing and be mindblown at the epic lifehack a bunch of frustrated virgin nerds discovered that defied everything we thought we knew about attraction and may literally have changed the course of evolution when it got widespread enough that all these nerds that were SUPPOSED to die virgins or breed with uggos, ended up breeding with hotties lol

"you’re not the only one who thinks it’s pretty strange…lol…but the FI is cunning and pervasive…lol… at one point i thought that Rollo was instigating a ‘team-building exercise’ to see what would happen…lol… but its gone on too long for that to be true…lol…"

This lol I fully expect this kind of resistance in a Blue Pill or Purple Pill forum, or even from certain Red Pill guys. But not from the guy who drilled deep on Hypergamy, Solipsism, War Brides, etc Half that first comment thread in the other article I thought the same thing, that it was some kind of exercise/test like "let's see if they're able to hold their explanation up through some counter-points" but like you say it's gone on too long for that and now it's pretty clear its an FI-social-conditoning or ego investment thing.

"the real impetus (at least for me…and i’m pretty sure for YaReally too) is to have an ACCURATE knowledge base, so that men that are like i was when i started = completely clueless… can KNOW how this shit works… provided of course, they are really willing to let the RP slide ALL the way down…lol…and they can then do some work to get ‘better’ at living their life… but that’s a different issue than whether or not the info is accurate… regardless of if it’s supportive of their efforts to improve…"

This. It's great if it also HAPPENS to be supportive of their efforts to improve…but we work from REAL infield facts and data FIRST. Because we want accurate assessments of what's going on. THEN we find a way to cushion the blow for guys and present it to them in a positive way giving them some guidelines on how to overcome the bad parts and/or best take advantage of the good parts.

We don't work from "let's make everyone feel good, then find some theories that we can wedge into that". If the data, tomorrow, literally told us that you have to be 6'4" to get laid and suddenly scray Tyler myself etc can't get laid to save our lives and all the data points towards that shit being diamond core iron clad consistent across the board, we would be the FIRST ones to go "Ok listen up I know no one wants to hear this BUT, you HAVE to be 6'4" to get laid. But don't worry because we can brainstorm solutions to get around that or fake it…platform shoes, leg-lengthening surgery, sitting on eachother's shoulders under a trenchcoat Scooby-Doo style…" and work on figuring out solutions.

We wouldn't go "ehh, this'll discourage the short guys like scray, so let's just brush this data aside". Because we would ultimately be doing him a disservice.

"so, for me, that accuracy in the knowledge base IS literally the difference btwn life and death for some men out there on the other side of the computer screen… and i consider those men my tribe… so, how hard do you think i SHOULD fight for it?… serious question…"

This. I'm not doing this because I like arguing. I would muuuuch rather the guys disagreeing understood what we were saying and looked at the evidence and hit the field more and agreed with what we're saying and I could just go get more work done.

But as long as there's pushback and inaccurate information being posted, ESPECIALLY on a blog as popular and well-respected as this, that so many men come to (VS some no-name guy's blog no one actually reads or cares about), I have no choice but to keep providing the counter evidence and keep harping on stuff like asking Rollo to answer "You could simply explain to us why the buff gay dude singing britney spears doesn’t moisten pussies even though his arms are still attached to his body." so we can baby-step our way through this and make actual progress in the discussion.

Because at the end of the day guys will kill themselves or give up and accept a miserable lonely life or get divorce raped etc over this shit. If we didn't have guys like Tyler rejecting that same social conditoning of "looks/money matter" (fun trivia, Tyler actually worked and earned a bunch of money when he was in his early 20s, he bought himself a little house and had expensive watches and shit and hit the gym a bunch because he tried to go the looks/money route and then found out that girls thought he was a tool when he tried to show that stuff off to them thinking it would get attraction) defying all previously held beliefs about looks/money/etc mattering, we wouldn't have the incredible knowledge-base we currently have that explains exactly and consistently WHY the buff gay dude singing britney spears doesn't moisen pussies.

@SFC Ton
"given the effeminate life of most men, how could they feel masculine?"

And when they DO try to be masculine, they hit the gym and chase money etc because they're relying on society's value system of masculinity which is literally, in my mind, the OPPOSITE *OF* masculinity. To me a masculine man defines his OWN value system because he knows himself and he knows his internals and he knows what HE accepts/expects from himself and others based on HIS values in the world, not someone else's. He compares himself to his own expectations instead of running the rat race to compare himself to others and compete in value systems he's given that often don't even resonate with him.

If any of you met me, especially the manly oldschool dudes like Blaximus, you guys would think I was a huge girly pussy in comparison to the Clint Eastwood types (I've had a bunch of blue-collar masculine buddies in various social circles who ribbed for it all the time lol). But I would put myself down as "feeling masculine" in that chart, because I don't compare myself to Clint Eastwood. I define my own value system based on what resonates with me and I work on living up to MY expectations and judging others through MY value system. So I feel VERY masculine because I fully understand myself and my values and my drives and priorities in life, and I am rock solid internally BECAUSE of that.

SO many guys out there these days don't even know who they are or what they value in life. They feel GUILTY just HAVING something they value that goes outside the socially conditioned narrative, or NOT valuing something the FI tells them they'd better value. They're just leafs blowing in the wind letting other people, society, TV/movies, social conditoning, women, fucked up men, etc define how they should think/feel and what they should be and what they should value.

A huuuuuge part of "The Game" is that when you push yourself to go out infield regularly you're forced to learn about yourself. The field will shove all your flaws and weaknesses and self-doubts in your face and will shit on you for clinging onto unhealthy/inaccurate belief systems. You'll meet enough people with enough of a wide variety of behaviors and interactions and value systems to learn what stuff you actually DON'T care about that was never REALLY a value to you, and what stuff makes the very core of your being go "NO, that's NOT right, I won't accept/perform that kind of behavior from people/myself" etc etc

That's why Tyler is rock solid these days. It would be pretty much impossible for someone to shake his frame because he's developed his internals so well. He knows he has tons of haters but he doesn't respond to them and just feels bad for them for even being in that negative headspace because he knows it's unhealthy for them long-term, and he never talks shit about other pickup companies or instructors even though they constantly try to shit on him (and his "illegitimate children").

But he started out as a leaf blowing in the wind just like most of us. The field forced him to become a solid oak tree.

@walawala @Culum Struan
"Lots of interactions are fun but if you’re intent is to move them forward, but more clear in what you want."

In this Tyler infield from his Hotseat at Home thing ("Week 7: Advanced Principles") he's got a good clip where he's pretty stifled from working all week or whatever and he opens this hottie. She's super receptive to him, like all smiles and engaging right away, but you can see in his body-language that he's rigid and holding back because he's out of state and doesn't feel entitled etc

He makes a really good point. He asks the audience "Is this girl giving me enough IOIs that I could probably have sex with her? Is she showing enough interest that she'd probably be cool with having sex with me at some point?" and it's clear that ya there's enough interest. But the point he then adds "But who's NOT letting that happen? Is it her? No, she's showing me interest/attraction. It's ME. *I'M* not LETTING us have sex because I'm stifled inside my head and holding back…I'm SCARED to touch her so I'm not touching her, but it's not out of a game tactic it's out of fear and feeling a lack of entitlement in that moment. But it's ME that's holding this interaction back even though if anyone watched this interaction it LOOKS like a "nice interaction", it LOOKS like I'm doing just fine, but I'm holding it back by refusing to accept that this girl could like me and allowing this to escalate."

Keep that in mind the next time you have positive reception and/or attraction from a girl but aren't leading it forwards anywhere. It's not HER that's holding the interaction back. The onus is on YOU to push things towards you two having sex, which can mean making bolder moves that show your intent/sexuality and risk blowing the set and risking rejection.

@Sentient
"I will leave this hear in the meantime"

Awesome, we're at the "dig up comments from a year ago" stage of this now. But that's fine because again your misunderstanding this is based on your (seemingly purposely) misrepresenting my stance. What I said there aligns with what I've been saying here, but I'll break it down for you because we know you love nitpicking the semantics and ignoring us when we tell you we're not saying what you think we're saying:

When I said "looks are simply another miscellaneous tool that adds a couple points but makes no real significant difference", the couple points I'm referring to are the free gimme IOIs that looks trigger, which is EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THE START. That girls' social conditioning leads them to assume that if you fit the socially conditioned narrative/stereotype of the type of guy that's likely to have those attractive subcomms, you'll get those "couple points" of free gimme IOI's based on that conditioning.

Funny how you didn't bold the "but makes no real significant difference" part. But I'm getting used to the sneaky/underhanded debate tactics going on here when you try to get people to fully swallow the red pill lol

But bring all the misinterpretation you want on, because what I'm saying has been a consistent point from day one 'cause I'm not arguing theory, I'm reporting what holds up under pressure testing infield.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 9:52 am
Original Link

@Rollo
Ok perfect, thanks for answering. Now a quick quiz for you, simple yes/no answers are fine:

“@YaReally, already did. Said it was incongruent with the masculine sub coms women expect (either hardwired or socially) from muscularly defined men.”

Ok excellent, so we basically agree that:

1) there are hardwired attraction switches that can be flipped causing the involuntary pussy soaking etc

2) masculine subcomms are what trigger that hardwired attraction response

3) masculine subcomms are universal (ie – confidence is always attractive, entitlement to be physical with her is always attractive, preselection is always attractive, etc basically no disagreement on that big list of subcomms I made right?)

4) masculine subcomms indicate a higher likelihood of having good survival/replication value for the woman and her offspring

5) a woman views a muscular man as more likely to have masculine subcomms

6) a man with muscles MAY or may NOT have those masculine subcomms

7) a Tyler scray etc with masculine subcomms will trigger that hardwired pussy wetting (which the hours and hours of infield demonstrate)

8) a woman will not have her hardwired involuntary attraction pussy wetting kick in for a guy who doesn’t have masculine subcomms (buff gay singing dude, etc)

No disagreement on those, right?

If those are agreed upon, then these conclusions naturally follow:

9) muscles do not inherently by default give a man masculine subcomms, because some muscular men have them and some don’t (buff gay singing dude, Forever Aloners at MISC, etc)

10) a woman who expects a man to have masculine subcomms but finds out he doesn’t, gets turned off

11) that turning off CAN simply be from the incongruency of her expectations, BUT because we know that men WITHOUT masculine subcomms (or with actively bad ones like the buff gay singing guy) don’t make a girl’s pussy wet, then it’s reasonable to conclude that both incongruency AND/OR a lack of masculine subcomms will not trigger that involuntary pussy soaking

Any disagreement on any of those points?

If those are agreed upon then we can conclude:

12) having muscles itself doesn’t cause involuntary pussy soaking, or girls wouldn’t be able to walk through a gay pride parade without pussy juice all over the ground, or NOT be turned on at male strip clubs, or NOT be able to watch that buff gay guy video without being turned on. Given the 11 points above, do you disagree with this conclusion?

13) if muscles + masculine subcomms = attraction
and no muscles + masculine subcomms = attraction
and muscles/no-muscles + bad/non-masculine subcomms = no attraction

then the common factor in triggering attraction is the masculine subcomms. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?

14) if subcomms are the main focus of PUA and the main development you get from infield experience, and as we said in points 6 and 9 a man with muscles isn’t guaranteed to have good masculine subcomms, then it stands to reason that the optimal use of a man’s time, to develop the subcomms which, in point 13 we conclude are the common factor in attraction, is to be hitting the field pushing his comfort zones and interacting with hot girls and guys/AMOGs and distractions/challenges to his frame and gathers him reference experiences of success with women etc etc which develop his subcomms, rather than lifting weights which as we’ve said in points 6 and 9, isn’t guaranteed to give him good subcomms. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?

I suspect you won’t really disagree with those first 14 because they’re all logical/consistent points with logical conclusions and tons of obvious evidence supporting them, but if you don’t, please clarify which points you would disagree with and why.

So if we DO agree on those 14 points, would you agree that our big disconnect is in the disagreements that:

14) our side says “muscles indicate that the man is more likely to have those attractive subcomms and lack of muscles indicate the man is less likely to have those attractive subcomms” is socially conditioned into women/men/society, while your side says that that is hardwired into women’s biology. Is that a fair summary of your view?

15) and our side says that because that assosciation is socially conditioned then another attribute besides muscles (beards, flat square-heads, fedoras, whatever) could, over a long period of time with a big enough push by society, become assosciated with “indicating that the man is more likely to have those attractive subcomms” (the same way an animal will learn to assosciate a light/sound with feeding time, or we get bad feels looking at a Nazi symbol or good feels seeing our employer who hands us money every week etc etc), but because you don’t believe that assosciation is socially conditioned, you would disagree with this. Is that a fair summary of your view?

16) our side says that those asssosciations change over time/culture (ie – that period where dudes wore makeup, and periods where being fat meant you had good survival/replication value ’cause you clearly had access to food when it was scarce, and in a War Brides situation the women rewire themselves to be attracted to the features of the new tribe that’s taken over, in a theoretical society where everyone had abundant money or money/exchanging goods/etc no longer mattered because we all had all the resources we need 24/7 then money would no longer indicate higher survival/replication value etc). You would disagree with that and believe that through all those different cultures/scenarios, looks/money would still be hardwired in women to indicate that the man is more likely to have those attractive subcomms. Is that a fair summary of your view?

Just trying to narrow down the disconnect minus the snark/misrepresentation/character assassination.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 9:55 am
Original Link

@Rollo
(on a totally non-serious note, as I was writing those points up I lol’ed thinking of a thought experiment: I wonder what would you guess would happen in a War Brides situ where the flat-head guys or say just conventionally ugly beta guys killed all the rest of the men and took over lol…say just a horde of flat-head clones (all physcially EXACTLY identical) who are ALL fat and 5’2″ etc, obliterated all other men. And in their society the more jars of peanut butter you had the longer you would be allowed to live and the more status you would be given and the more the other flat-head 5’2″ men wouldn’t fuck with you.

Say that happens and a few thousand years pass…would women just never get horny again? Or would they rely 100% on subcomms or whatever in that society indicates high survival/replication value? Would they seek out guys with lots of peanut butter and fuck them but not be horny? After thousands of years would they start to become horny when they see a guy’s big stack of peanut butter he carries around?

I’m legitimately just curious what you’d think on this lol the War Brides article was one of my favorites because of the super controversial dynamic it dives into and the infield evidence of it being accurate that I’ve seen)


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:05 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“So based on the word of a researcher like Wendy Wood what do you believe?”

I’m not in the middle of this one ’cause I don’t care about debating studies, but just stepping in to say that to be fair it doesn’t matter who she is as long as what she’s saying is backed by evidence/data and non-flawed experimentation. Character assassination and credentials-based discrediting is the Feminist/SJW move where they don’t want us to listen to what Red Pill’ers have to say so they say “don’t look at what they’re saying, just look at what a HORRIBLE LOSER this ROOSH guy is!!! You’re gonna believe THIS guy???” and it’s why they want us to all put our faces out there and dox ourselves etc so they can shame everyone and slander their credibilty etc to discourage anyone from looking at their facts/evidence.

It should 100% come down to “does what they’re saying have evidence backing it up, does the counter point have evidence against it, and were the experiments they used to come to their conclusions rock solidly designed experiments”. A homeless crazy crackhead on the street could tell you how to lift weights as long as what he says is accurate and works and is backed up by evidence/data etc

Now if we don’t have access to her evidence/research/experiments to look at them and look for flaws, then ya, her credentials/biases come into play. But if the research is there to look at and the experiments are solid it doesn’t matter if a homeless crackhead runs the well-designed gravity test or a rocket scientist does, as long as we can see the resulting data for ourselves.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:08 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“It’s the only logical explanation.”

Come on man, drop the snark for a few minutes, I’m sure everyone’s tired of this going on for 400 pages.

It’s a simple set of very fair questions that won’t take you more than a couple minutes to answer Yes/No to, to narrow down the discussion to the actual disconnect.

Is your answer to all 16 of those questions, LEGITIMATELY, seriously, without snark, “we can’t know any of this”? Is that really your honest view/position?


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:14 am
Original Link

@Rollo
So you’re not going to actually answer those 16 questions that would allow us to understand your viewpoint and clarify both sides of the discussion’s viewpoints?


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:17 am
Original Link

It’d actually be nice if Scray, Sentient, Having a Bad Day, etc answered them too, so we can all understand what our positions are and have a productive discussion instead of this gay Mean Girls snarking.

@Rollo
“The data is completely inconclusive so I’d be foolish to say yes until I have hard, incontrovertible data points that confirm what you’re suggesting.”

…but I guess that was hoping for too much from an alpha male in his late 40s.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Original Link

@Rollo
Consider stepping away from the computer for a bit till you’re not emotionally wrapped up in whatever scray’s saying, then come back and re-read the 16 questions and answer them. I’m sure everyone would prefer the discussion went somewhere instead of circling in loops and cat-fighting like this.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:25 am
Original Link

@Rollo
I’m talking to you, not Scray, and I’ve never said that you’re saying game doesn’t work.

Those 16 questions are nice and simple and aren’t biased or loaded with unfair assumptions or anything, I’m just trying to clarify your position and our position. Please help contribute to this conversation being more productive.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:29 am
Original Link

@Rollo
Again chill out on the scray boner for a second. If I knew what your answers were I wouldn’t be asking you to clarify them. You can simply answer Yes/No to the questions, it will take less time than writing another comment about how scray is a poopy-head. Then we can understand your position and where our positions disconnect.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 10:48 am
Original Link

@Scray
Thanks for clarifying.

What you said is food for thought. We know that stuff like football teams running a train on a girl is a thing, and that even the low-value guy on the football team becomes “high-value” in that moment by association, and in that moment the girl feels she’s not being judged (same as when she jumps up on the bar to whip out her tits with everyone cheering her on etc), and anyone with social circles of high-value player buddies knows that those guys will pass girls around and the girls will happily fuck whichever guy or multiple of the guys (at the same time even, and with other girls in the group even) and because those atmospheres overall have the Secret Society non-judgemental vibe (in the moment, or at least the girl FEELS like she won’t be judged), it’s usually pretty open and no one cares and ASD doesn’t really get triggered etc etc

But I don’t know about girls fucking like, the chess team who all has bad subcomms. But then if they had bad subcomms they wouldn’t be feeling entitled to sexually escalate on the girl. I mean we can go back to that whole SGDQ fiasco with that nerd chick fooling around with a bunch of dudes and that whole culture, but again in that situation the guys escalating it are primarily the ones with the entitlement/comfort TO escalate things so at a quick glance it seems to come back to the subcomms again.

Either way it’s an interesting discussion.

@kfg
“Did you stop fucking your goat today?”

If Rollo thinks any of the 16 questions/points I listed is loaded/unfair, I completely welcome him to simply state which ones so I can revise the question into something that he feels is not loaded/unfair and we can clarify his position.

@Rollo
You are acting like a 14 year old girl throwing a temper tantrum right now.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 11:08 am
Original Link

@scray
“but if we’re just thinking about a society where sex is just ‘that thing you do when you’re bored and want to be friends!’ i’m not sure if you’d need the chess team guy to have good subcomms. maybe she’ll just suck his cock when she’s bored or put his dick inside of her cause it’s like pizza — even when it’s bad it’s good.”

I gotta think on this one. I’ve definitely seen situations where sex is that level of casual, and hotter girls tend to be VERY casual about sexual stuff (like Tyler notes in his breakdown of that Yellow dress pickup I posted, the girl’s tit falls out and she just thinks it’s funny because she’s confident and he’s high-value to her, it’s not some big scandal, and like her girlfriends KNOW Tyler’s going to fuck her and don’t care, and I’ve had girls/roommates/etc walk in on me fucking their friend and we just like have a conversation about whatever no fucks given by anyone involved etc).

But I’d legitimately have to sit down and think this one through to form an opinion on it or make any real practical/useful conclusion. And even then the examples I’m thinking of in my head all tend to involve the guy taking the initiative VS the girl initiating it (ie – she’s up for giving a BJ out of just boredom etc and gets turned on when she’s doing it, but she’s not like walking in the room to a low-value/bad-subcomm nerd going “hey drop your pants I wanna suck some dick” lol) but it’s something worth thinking about.

“practically there isn’t a difference because where we find ourselves now — in this society (and most societies around the world) — the subcomms are an important signal.”

Right. Though there may environments like swingers clubs, open LTRs, porn shoots, orgies, etc where that kind of “sex is just “that thing you do when you’re bored”” mentality could play out. When I was looking into the James Deen fiasco a lot of that Kink warehouse they shoot a bunch of porn at sounds like if they aren’t shooting everyone just kind of does whatever and if they want to fool around they just do like its no big deal, and found that same environment in a kink house I went to…I haven’t hung around the swinger party scene much but I’d bet there are groups where that attitude is there. That said even in those environments, right NOW subcomms are probably still pretty involved in determining WHICH guy the girl decides to casually fool around with (VS in your hypothetical society).

“but ya it’s just a thought. i’m not saying it’s anything more than speculation.”

Right. It’s almost like it’s fine to analyze stuff. WEIRD.

@kfg
I can’t help that your mom keeps begging for it man. Could you come by and untie her from the tree in my yard and take her home, thanks


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 11:12 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Therefore it would be irresponsible for me, or really even you or any PUA, to build and promote any sort of concrete social apparatus based on presumptions where a lot of facts seem to be at odds with them.”

If that’s officially your stance you want to take with my sincere attempts to clarify the discussion and help bring this thing to some kind of resolution, then alright. Honestly very disappointed to see this kind of behavior from a guy who’s in-depth analysis I have a shitload of respect for.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 11:36 am
Original Link

@scray
“so he sets this frame of sex being that level of casual and every time i’ve been able to drop something like this in set it just works like gangbusters.”

Right, this was a big part of how I used to amuse myself in my LTRs when I was stuck in these “hang out with her friends” scenarios. At the start of the evening all the other couples would barely be touching eachother like you wouldn’t know they were even together. But because I don’t care about social pressure I would be groping my girl at the table. At first there would be “ehh this is awkward” vibes from them but, as I kept my frame that groping/kissing/etc was totally normal despite that pressure, every single time the other couples would end up, by the end of the night, being as gropey/sexual as we were and probably went home to have some epic sex that they wouldn’t have had if I hadn’t set the frame that “sex is natural, we’re all here with people we like to fuck, let your freak flag fly who cares”.

I didn’t push it into passing the girls around etc cause that’s just kind of gross to me personally instead of any kind of turn-on (that’s just me, different strokes for different folks, I get WHY the guys who are into it are into it ’cause I know guys that think the power/control over degrading a chick with their buddies is hot etc and I know girls who think that’s hot too), but the guys I’ve known that DO set that kind of vibe at afterparties/nights out etc where they pass girls around, it’s a similar execution but taken further.

@fleezer
Tell us more about how game only works on bar sluts and not your magical NAWALTs.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 11:51 am
Original Link

@fleezer
Chick I knew invited me and I went to check it out to see what that scene was about. Swingers you just meet all over the place when you go out, you probably know a handful of couples that swing and just don’t realize it because they’re discreet and you don’t bring the subject up in your conversations.

The kink scene I saw definitely wasn’t my style, lots of uggos and shit who’s value is situationally inflated because of the scarcity involved in being part of that specific scene (openly proud kinky/fetish people (VS the ones who are just kinky in private and don’t go to those places)), and the dom guys took themselves WAAAAY too seriously to engage with (like a lot of “badass” Red Pill guys)…though to be fair to them, it probably helped for them to play up the dominant/serious roles hanging out in that scene in general with all the openly submissive girls looking for a dom. But like, they weren’t fun to interact with and there wasn’t enough good scenery at that particular place for me to want to go back lol

“if there’s more than one dick out, you’re doing something wrong”

Come on now, don’t be so hard on your mom.


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Original Link

@scray
“usually the girls just come to me from them. like no one wants to do anything with the other guys lol, because the other guys are too busy being uncomfortable.”

Right, I’m talking about a slightly different approach I guess when I refer to what I was doing in my LTR hangouts, where I’m just setting the frame that sex with your partner is normal/casual (aka I’m subtly trying to wingman the other guys with their girls because I already have mine with me and am satisfied with her for the night) VS what you’re doing where you create a situation where you’re a guy available to fuck and make yourself the highest-value guy triggering Hypergamy so the girls chase you (which definitely is a thing that happens and a thing I’ll do in normal situations where I’m looking to get laid or want to attract the other guys’ girls (like if I’m in a mixed set where I don’t care about the guys or their relationships or they’re assholes trying to AMOG me etc lol)).


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 12:19 pm
Original Link

@scary
To clarify I meant “make yourself the highest-value guy, NOT necessarily by directly hitting on the girls or a specific girl, but just by setting that “sex is no big deal” frame in general at the table, which, just by being comfortable with sex and not caring about the social pressure to have the balls to say that etc etc (back to the big subcomms list), raises your value above the other guys who are uncomfortable”


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 1:22 pm
Original Link

@scribblerg
Props dude! Clapped when I read your post lol

“Now that women “aren’t the prize” and sex isn’t so loaded up with meaning, it’s just sex.”

Right. You probably viewed it this way back in your prime too, when it was abundant and it was like “it’s just sex, no big fucking deal”. Ultimately sex isn’t that big a deal (aside from being super fun) and won’t fix you, that’s why we focus on the field so much because it’s the infield experience that helps fix/build your internals more than the rewards themselves.

Tyler puts it good: “If you think sex is going to make you happy, think about who has INFINITE amounts of sex available…gay guys and girls. Are THEY happy?? No they’re a MESS. Sex isn’t going to fix your shit and make you happy” lol

The less of a big deal it is to you, the easier it is to engage women with outcome independence.

Of course if you now go through a few weeks of not having sex, you’ll probably start to revert back to the scarcity “sex IS a big deal ahhhh I want it!!!” mindset. Don’t let that freak you out, it’s natural for that to happen lol

“It’s just not that much work in the sense of effort or doing stuff. What she reacted to is me being real and entitled to her pussy. I turned that around when I realized that my “need” was coming through in my “gaming” and in a way was just another demonstration of my low value.”

Only going to recommend you one video to watch, ’cause based on your post and your overall Natural mentality, I think you might resonate with this video a lot, specifically what he’s saying about the difference between DOING and BEING…you’ll probably be a lot more comfortable/congruent focusing on the “BEING” as you gain positive reference experiences that your “old man” hangups don’t really matter to girls:

“When I began dealing with her logistics realistically, it fell into place.”

Even THINKING ABOUT how to overcome the logistics puts your brain in the mindset of “it’s possible that we might have sex”. It’s like guys learning game who don’t carry a condom on them…subconsciously they don’t really EXPECT to need one and that affects a lot of little subcomms and decisions and shit.

This is part of why I get guys to re-think through their sets and think “how COULD I have turned that into a lay?”, because their brain starts learning to think “how can I go from this point to my goal” and builds that habit which starts to come out in the moment in set. This is why Field Reports etc are important for making efficient progress.

““Old man game” is gone.”

Fucking bravo. It’s not even that there AREN’T a few minor differences to being older, like getting shit-tested a bit more or dealing with her peers and helping her avoid judgement being trickier etc, it’s that every time you label yourself that way in your head/writing and try to Special Snowflake yourself, you separate yourself from viewing yourself as a guy who deserves to fuck the girls around you. It’s just a shitty defeatest mindset that DOES affect your subcomms which the girl pings off and what you feel she feels etc etc and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“It’s why I’m less interested here these days.”

Fucking get out of here if it helps lol I hope you never come back. I hope EVERYONE I talk to or give advice to in the Red Pill communities that needs help ends up heading out into “real life” and fixing their shit and is so busy slaying poon and enjoying their new mindsets and lifestyles and handling their life and achieving their goals so that I never see their username again. That would be fucking fantastic in my mind.

@Rollo
This is really embarrassing to watch man. Sincerely, maybe take the rest of the day/weekend away from the Internet and do some fishing or whatever you do in your downtime?


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 4:07 pm
Original Link

@Rollo
“but the initial perception that a man should have them is communicated by his physical impressiveness, facial symmetry, low voice, masculine defining features, etc. as is congruent with the perception that men of this nature DO possess those defining traits.”

Right, which is basically saying “muscles/looks indicate that a guy is more likely to have those traits that cause the girls pussy to get wet etc” which we agree on then.

“It would stand to reason that heterosexual women would presuppose that parading homosexual men’s looks are by default incongruent with with the masculine-positive sub coms they would expect from potential heterosexual male sex partners.”

Then is it fair to say:

1) a girl seeing a still photo of say that buff gay singing dude where he may look straight (assuming he has normal/masculine body-language etc in the pic, VS the crossdresser dude who’s obviously gay in his pics), would probably assume he’s more likely to have those traits and get the wet pussy feel off it (and then when she plays the actual video and sees him demonstrate the actively gay subcomms, no more turned on vag ’cause he’s actively showing that he doesn’t actually have the subcomms she was assuming he would have). Would you agree with this?

2) wrt the male homosexual acts arousing girls, just skimming that chick’s study:

“Planned contrasts showed that masturbation elicited significantly greater vaginal responses than exercise”

This is fine, I don’t see any problem with this. A man displaying his sexual nature gets more response than just exercising, that aligns with the subcomms stuff (demonstrating that you’re comfortable with sexuality and expressing your sexuality etc).

“Re-sponses to male exercise, however, were not significantly different from the response to the control stimulus”

How would you explain the above with regards to the muscles/looks triggering the sexual reactions? A male exercising is literally showing his muscles flexing etc by himself, but the response is basically insignificant. It doesn’t sound like a guy standing at the bar being jacked would do much.

But the next results get interesting:

“and couples engaging in sexual intercourse elicited significantly greater vaginal responses than masturbation”

“These results support the hypothesis that women’s vaginal responses vary with the sexual activity depicted, with more explicit sexual activity eliciting stronger responses”

Which means that basically when you add someone else to the equation (ie – now the man is doing something to another man/woman, and a bonobo ape is doing something to its mate etc, which means a man is dominating something (which brings us back to demonstrating those masculine dominance, entitlement to physcially manhandle their partner, sexual confidence, etc subcomms), that’s when they get significant sexual attraction triggers flipping on.

Even though this supports what we’re saying (the subcomms demonstrated (or assumed to be likely to be there) are what cause the sexual triggers flipping), I still couldn’t entirely conclude on it because it’s theroetically possible that the gay porn and bonobo porn they were watching involved two subjects very delicately caressing eachother to orgasm at a mutual level of involvement (ie – two bottoms), but we would have to see the actual porn used to determine that and I think it’s fairly safe to assume that the porn would involve a dominant and submissive (pretty much guaranteed with the bonobo porn, and just highly likely with the gay porn), but I couldn’t find any real descriptive details on how dom/sub the gay porn was (which I think I’m glad about lol).

So all in all what that study shows seems to align with what we’re saying.

Either way I think it’s interesting how flippant you are with the results of this study. What flaw do you see in the test methods? Legitimate question. It seems solid enough to me because they’re rigged up to test their reactions, though the whole “being in a lab knowing they’re in an experiment” thing to me could fuck with the results so if there’s counter-evidence to this study I’d want to look at the method used in the counter-evidence study and see if it has potential flaws etc in its design and compare the two to reach any kind of conclusion, but what this study shows generally aligns with what we’re saying.

“Only insofar as we accept that the lack of looks/muscularity, and the common perception (whether hardwired, socialized or both) of a man lacking them would also be perceived to lack those sub coms, is a deficit that learning good sub coms can compensate for”

I think Tyler and all the skinny PUAs etc would pretty consistently indicate this. ie – they don’t have the look and the initial perception of them (whether hardwired, socialized or both) would be that they probably lack those subcomms, but as their infield shows their good subcomms compensate for that. So I assume we can agree on this too.

“While lifting weights and looking good is not a guarantee of attraction it still promotes the perception that a man will possess those good sub coms.”

Right, we agree then, that lifting weights will create a look that indicates a high likelyhood of possessing those subcomms that will trigger the girl’s pussy soaking response, and that will get him free IOIs etc because she’s acting under the assumption that he’s probably going to have those subcomms (whether he does or not) because he hasn’t displayed that he does or doesn’t (in a picture etc).

Which would then bring us to: “do they get wet by the pictures they see on Tinder”? The study above with the guys exercising not getting any real response indicates that they probably won’t. Unless those pictures involved sexual activity (again according to that study).

“Ergo, free IOIs and the 121 responses of Male Y as opposed to the 0 responses of the Low Attractive Male in this experiment:”

…which is an online dating site experiment. So by default we cut out any ability to display bad subcomms and warp the results of the study because guys, in real life, aren’t frozen motionless unless the girl is sitting on their dick, they move and exist in their environment displaying whatever their subcomms are and interact with the girl displaying whatever their subcomms are etc. So the results of this experiment don’t really mean anything and we can dismiss it completely as flawed.

And according to the study from above, unless these guys have very sexual pictures up, there’s no significant increase in pussy wetness, though there logically is an increase in INTEREST, because they message/swipe the guys, which aligns with what we’re saying, that INTEREST is a chance to see if the guy’s subcomms match the assumption they have of the subcomms he should have…but are not SEXUAL AROUSAL, just INTEREST. And if we accept that conclusion (and if we can’t, I’m legitimately open to hearing why we can’t) then we can also conclude that real life instant free gimme IOI reactions are based on INTEREST (interest in seeing if he has good subcomms) more than actual SEXUAL AROUSAL, because the girl hasn’t interacted with the guy or seen him in action yet so she hasn’t seen if he actually DOES have those good subcomms that cause her to get wet.

“Actually I’ve written for years that it’s both. In fact you’ve used the term “hardwired” in several of your questions thus far so I can’t accept that “your side” is only invested in the idea that attraction is exclusively the result of social conditioning and there isn’t an evolved component to arousal/attraction, as well as a myriad of other evo-bio prompted behaviors we all acknowledge manifest in women.”

Good, this stuff is why I wanted you to answer these questions. This is one of the points where our wires are crossed and maybe we can solve it now that we know what you’re saying.

We have never ever said “attraction is exclusively the result of social conditioning and there isn’t an evolved component to arousal/attraction”. This is a misinterpretation of what we’re saying:

– we are saying that the evolved/hardwired/biological involuntary wet pussy response to those good/masculine subcomms in that big list of subcomms I made IS hardwired across the board, universal, since the beginning of time. We 100% agree with you that these things ARE “hardwired” across all cultures and times etc. “Confidence” has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be attractive. Entitlement, etc etc all the stuff in that list triggers hardwired involuntary wet pussy responses because those good subcomms indicate high survival/replication value. Just like fight/flight with threats on survival is hardwired etc. We all agree on this and have been saying this since the start. There’s no disagreement here on our side.

– where the disconnect is, is that I don’t think you realize what we’re saying is socially conditioned are WHAT we learn CONTAINS those things…ie – a kid plays with a dog not realizing it has potential for danger and the dog bites it triggering it’s fight/flight, or the parent yanks the kid away and tells it to be careful etc, and the kid learns “dogs potentially = danger” THAT is socially conditioned and can be manipulated…ie – someone who’s scared of spiders is made to hold and interact with spiders until they learn not to fear them. Or a videogame teaches you to shit a brick whenever you see a particular difficult enemy or those jumpscare games that people play, Pavlov’s dog with the feeding time bell, etc etc.

So like, we can control and condition people to assosicate various things and teach them WHAT to assosciate “this thing will trigger your fight/flight response” to, through social conditioning.

Do you agree or disagree with this part, because this is kind of the cornerstone of where shit is going off the rails in our discussion so I want to make sure I haven’t said anything in the above that you disagree with yet.

– assuming you agree with those first two points, what we’re saying is that we have been socially conditioned to expect that guys with a particular look is likely to have those good subcomms that trigger sexual attraction, just like in other cultures they’re conditioned to believe the flat-head guy is likely to have those good subcomms that trigger sexual attraction.

Is there anything in that that you disagree with?

“which you promptly disqualified because you took it as a threat to Game”
“Now you acknowledge that what you wear IS in fact indicative of good or bad sub coms? ”

I disqualified it because INTEREST/ATTENTION does not equal SEXUAL AROUSAL, not because it implies game doesn’t matter. And fitting the socially conditioned view of a guy who’s likely to have those good subcomms DOES get INTEREST/ATTENTION (aka those free gimme IOIs which, as shown in the study above, aren’t the same as sexual arousal), but that those are irrelevant because it’s the actual subcomms that create SEXUAL arousal. ie – the buff gay dude in a suit’s subcomms will always trump his suit and not trigger sexual arousal (which according to that study wouldn’t even BE triggered unless he had his pants off masturbating or was fucking/getting fucked).

Also, because we know fashion trends change constantly, we know that this “dressing a certain way indicates you’re likely to have good subcomms” is socially conditioned. Girls don’t look at a guy dressed like a jock from the 80s with his 80s mullet and think “that’s sexy” like they would have back then when that was the socially conditioned indicator of potential likelyhood to have good subcomms.

“Tyler can go boost three women off a guy in the street wearing his pajamas, but those pajamas are still broadcasting sub coms about him before he comes within 10 feet of a girl. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?”

I agree that those pajamas are broadcasting subcomms (good or bad depends on the environment, like the casually dressed guy in a fancy place can be interpreted as being the owner or so rich he doesn’t care about fitting in etc, which are again socially conditioned assumptions), but that they’re irrelevant for triggering SEXUAL attraction because his ACTUAL subcomms (good or bad) that he’s displaying will trump that, so the only situation where it’s really relevant would be in a still photograph of him on Tinder in his pajamas (which again could be good or bad if all the other guys come off try-hard etc), but even then according to that sexual study the Likes on Tinder are just INTEREST not SEXUAL AROUSAL (interest as in looking for an opportunity to see if he has good subcomms or not, which are what ACTUALLY trigger the SEXUAL AROUSAL as indicated in that study).

“I should also point out that survival and replication (Beta Bucks / Alpha Fucks) can, and often are, prioritized independent of each other in women’s sexual strategies according to their necessity and/or phase of maturity.”

Like I’ve said from the start, we’re talking about SEXUAL ATTRACTION here, aka Alpha Fucks so this isn’t really relevant right now. This discussion is complicated enough just addressing the Alpha Fucks side of thing as it is so let’s stick with that, because that’s the focus on the looks debate, that looks trigger instant nipple hardening pussy wetting and are better for short term flings bla bla bla Alpha Fucks.

Whereas what we’re saying is that the interest those looks get is irrelevant/nonsexual INTEREST (which is backed by that sexual study and field experience etc), and it’s when the guy displays his masculine/good subcomms that the girls sexual arousal is triggered.

“It should also be noted that in an age where women’s survival/provisioning necessities are relatively assured, and women’s Hypergamy is given social carte blanche, they have a remarkable tendency to prioritize the Alpha Fucks replicative aspect of their evolved sexual strategy.”

I don’t disagree with this, and we are talking about Alpha Fucks so that’s fine. There’s no reason to even bring this up since this Alpha Fucks they’re prioritizing is what we’re talking about. We are NOT describing Beta Bucks.

Is there anything here you disgree with? Do you consider that sexual study flawed and the results thusly irrelevant? What do you say to the interest/arousal difference it (and our experiences in the field) demonstrates?


YaReally
on May 20th, 2016 at 4:28 pm
Original Link

@Via Vitae
“Why cant muscles just _be_ a subcomm by the way?”

Because good subcomms are always attractive. Confidence is always attractive. Entitlement is always attractive. There’s no such thing as a girl being turned off because a guy is TOO confident or because he makes TOO good eye-contact with her. But muscles are not always attractive or Rollo’s wife would bang Jay Cutler when he walks through the room. And skinny guys get attraction too, and jacked guys get rejected, etc etc

So really it might be more accurate not to say that looks absolutely DON’T matter, but to say that there’s ZERO conclusive evidence that they DO matter in any way besides getting initial free gimme IOIs that represent INTEREST not SEXUAL ATTRACTION. Does that sound better? ’cause I’m alright with that definition.

@Rollo
“Scray if that’s your standpoint then any and all assertions YaReally presumes about “hardwired” attributes to attraction are false or unverifiable, and thus the very underpinnings of what constitute ‘good sub coms’ should have no bearing on Game whatsoever.”

Only if you misunderstand what I’m saying is hardwired. Plz read this post where I explain where I think we’re having our disconnect with regards to the “hardwired” thing and see if that clears it up or if you have disagreements with it:

https://therationalmale.com/2016/05/15/tribes/comment-page-8/#comment-156980

@scribblerg
Props dude, do what you gotta do, everyone goes through that stage of “look I gotta just go focus on myself right now” so no offense taken by anyone here I’m sure.

@titanic
“I’m siding with Rollo in that male looks are arousing to women, independent of subcoms, etc”

You’d be going against that study Rollo linked about sexual arousal then. And field experience etc So that study would have to be discredited first for this to be a reasonable position to take (which I’m totally open to hearing why it’s a flawed study, I have no investment in that study, it just sounds decently solid in its design since it’s wired pussies lol)

“Siding with Ya that for the vast majority of guys, their next hour of free time is much better spent practicing game instead of hitting the gym, improving how they dress, making more money, etc.”

Speaking of, time to get ready to go sarge lol Friday night all, take a break from the discussion and go hit up some cute girls. Try focusing on experimenting with subcomms and looks!


YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 9:23 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“And yet, we really can’t because if a woman were to walk into a sperm bank and have the choice to impregnate herself with either of these guy’s sperm based on their pictures, my ‘hunch’ is she’ll go with Male Y. ”

Yes, because social conditioning says “Male Y is more likely to have the good subcomms that indicate high survival/rep”, just like in whatever that tribe was the girl would pick the guy with the flattest head, etc

“Isolated from all other variables, good looks still denote something sexy.”

Because of social conditioning that says it does. In the flat-head culture they are having this same discussion with their Rollo equivalent saying “Isolated from all other variables, flat heads still denote something sexy.”

“If you put either of these guys into some sexy body posture or they take their shirts off in some environment conducive to sex, or they both evoke the exact same sub coms, which one is lusted after and which one is laughed at?”

According to that study that showed there’s no increased sexual response (aka “lusting”). What do you say to that part of the study? What flaws do you see in that study’s design that would have you ignore their results and say “whatever man, trust me, they LUST and get wet when they see these guys shirtless!!!”? Because the data shows they’ll show more INTEREST, but not more LUSTING.

“we are saying that the evolved/hardwired/biological involuntary wet pussy response to those good/masculine subcomms in that big list of subcomms I made IS hardwired across the board”
“Actually this is what you said:”
“and our side says that because that assosciation is socially conditioned then”

SIGHHHHHHHHHH…once AGAIN you miss what I’m saying completely. I’d swear you’re doing this on purpose.

REALLY SLOWLY NOW, STEP BY STEP:

1) “we are saying that the evolved/hardwired/biological involuntary wet pussy response to those good/masculine subcomms in that big list of subcomms I made IS hardwired across the board”

Okay? Get it? So it’s the response to those *********SUBCOMMS********* (confidence etc, that list I made) that is the hardwired part.

Okay? SUBCOMMS. RESPONSE….TO….****SUBCOMMS****….IS….THE….HARDWIRED….PART.

NOT the socially conditioned part. Get it? The RESPONSE to those SUBCOMMS, is *******NOT******* the part that’s socially conditioned.

Okay? We good? We clear on that?

2) “and our side says that because that assosciation is socially conditioned”

The *****ASSOCIATION***** of “INSERT TRAIT HERE (in this case looks) = likely to have good subcomms” is the part that’s socially conditioned.

NOTTTTTTT THEEEEEE SUBCOMMMMMMSSSSSSSS. THOSE ARE HARDWIRED.

The ASSOSICATION that “a guy who looks like X is likely to have that list of subcomms I made” is what’s socially conditioned.

These are TWO SEPARATE THINGS that you keep grouping together and then saying that Scray and I are disagreeing and that I’m contradicting myself and PUA and everything. Because you keep lumping SUBCOMMS THEMSELVES, and the ASSOSICATION of WHAT’S LIKELY TO HAVE those subcomms together.

Does this make sense?

This is what our conversation looks like:

“fearing something that can endanger your life is hardwired. the things that you learn CAN endanger your life, are socially conditioned.”

And YOU are then going “WOAH WOAH WOAH you better talk with scray and throw out PUA buddy, because you’re saying that fearing something that can endanger your life is SOCIALLY CONDITIONED”

No, that’s not what I’m saying, that’s not what I’ve BEEN saying, that’s not even what I’m saying in those two questions you quoted and then completely misinterpreted in the way I’ve just described.

Do you understand now? SUBCOMMS are HARDWIRED across all cultures etc etc etc The THING that indicates that a guy is LIKELY TO HAVE those subcomms is what’s SOCIALLY CONDITIONED. These are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. ONE is HARDWIRED and the OTHER is SOCIALLY CONDITIONED.

I don’t know how many times I can re-state this, I’ve been saying it since the start and you keep trying to say that I’m saying “attraction to good subcomms is socially conditioned”. That’s NOT what I’m saying, that’s not what I’ve EVER said, that is YOUR misinterpretation of what I’m writing.

“So it’s INTEREST now?”

According to the study that shows the results that women don’t get SEXUALLY AROUSED by seeing naked men not doing anything sexual, and pretty convincingly supports that it’s seeing those men INTERACTING with a partner/other people (and bonobos interacting with their partners), where GOOD SUBCOMMS ARE BEING DISPLAYED (since one partner is dominating the other etc), that makes them LUST and triggers SEXUAL AROUSAL.

Do you have a problem with that study’s design/methods? If so, what problems do you have with it? I’m genuinely curious to hear.

“Interest in what? Interest in what a ‘hawt guy’ thinks about the local weather or interest the possibility of fucking him?”

As I explained before, multiple times: INTEREST IN FINDING OUT IF HE ******DOES****** HAVE THOSE GOOD SUBCOMMS THAT WILL ****ACTUALLY***** TRIGGER HER HARDWIRED SEXUAL AROUSAL RESPONSE, BECAUSE THEY INDICATE HIGH SURVIVAL/REPLICATION VALUE

Does this finally make sense to you?

SUBCOMMS are HARDWIRED across all cultures etc etc etc The THING that indicates that a guy is LIKELY TO HAVE those subcomms is what’s SOCIALLY CONDITIONED. These are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. ONE is HARDWIRED and the OTHER is SOCIALLY CONDITIONED.


YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 11:47 am
Original Link

@theasdgamer
“Good point. And, following that thought, an immediate shit test follows overthetop confidence.”

Right, because she wants to make sure you’re not faking the good subcomms. And when you demonstrate good subcomms by PASSING her shit-test, you flip hardwired triggers that arouse her.

@Via Vitae
“Assuming Rollo’s wife has no agency or ability to make complex choices between what is a good idea and what is not”

Attraction is not a choice. She doesn’t choose to be attracted to confidence. She doesn’t choose to be attracted to a guy who passes her shit-tests. These are involuntary responses that are triggered by those things. Often she’ll HATE that she’s attracted to a guy, but he’s flipping her triggers so she can’t stop it.

“And I don’t know if a girl never got turned off because the wrong guy assumed too much, or that there is no such thing as false confidence and entitlement”

Those aren’t equivalents though. There’s no such thing as too much confidence. There’s arrogance, there’s incongruence, etc, but those are not just different amounts of good solid attractive confidence, those are warped versions of confidence with other factors involve that make those displays NOT good subcomms.

“That would explain that story that @Blaximus related a while back about his cousin or friend who was jacked but a little soft upstairs, who relied on non-verbal game to get laid.”

There have been PUAs with aspergers etc who have that same “accidentally high-value subcomms” thing Blax’s friend does, without the muscles, and they report getting the same kind of reactions. There’s no real evidence to support that Blaximus’ friend being jacked had any relevance at all to building sexual Alpha Fucks attraction except a whole lot of FI conditioning and meaningless self-surveying and Tinder studies (where the ability to display bad subcomms is removed (unless you take really shitty bad subcomm photos), so girls default to their social conditoning of “looks means he probably has good subcomms” and pick the jacked guy).

“Also @Blaximus gave a pretty good story about using mostly physical game, and mostly let the woman game herself.”

Getting physical with her indicates a ton of good subcomms from that list I wrote up. There’s no real evidence to support that his looks mattered and a lot of evidence to support that even without the looks, that same kind of physicality will trigger the same responses (witness Tyler etc infield vids where they do the same stuff and get those same responses).

“They right there acknowledge a lot about the woo woo nature of subcomms and what is attractive or not”

There’s not actually any “woo-woo” nature to subcomms except when guys who don’t understand subcomms and need me to make a list of them to understand what I’m even talking about, try to discredit the VERY OBSERVABLE SUBCOMMS happening all around them lol

They’re very clear, they’re easy to list, easy to observe, etc. It’s just that guys don’t learn to consciously pay attention to them so they don’t see them and they attribute success/failure to easier-to-observe stuff (like looks/money) that align with their social conditioning etc

Like I’m not asking anyone to believe in woo-woo here. That’s why I broke down that handsome man dancing video to explain the subcomms involved. It’s right there in front of us to see, there’s no leap of faith when I say “that guy is making solid eye-contact with her and leaning back relaxed”. That’s the thing that’s happening that we’re seeing in front of us and it looks different from a guy who’s avoiding eye-contact and leaning forward needy/anxious”.

A huge part of PUA is teaching guys to observe this stuff so that when we head out infield we can read all these little subcomm dynamics going on in the room.

“I am not so confident you or any PUA is always the final authority on _why_ it works”

We’re basically willing to accept any theory for it, as long as that theory can explain why what happens infield happens, without contradicting what happens infield. Evopsych sounds pretty solid in general, and if you actually read what I’m writing instead of Rollo’s inaccurate summaries/misinterpretations of my points, you’ll see that nothing I’m saying really goes AGAINST evopsych’s basic principles:

ie – good subcomms indicate high survival/replication value which triggers arousal responses in women and in the past muscles etc DID make a difference in your survival and keeping offspring alive, and as society became more advanced and we stopped needing muscles to survive, media was springing up and keeping the traditional views alive, so now we’re at a point where we don’t actually NEED muscles (Bill Gates is surviving/replicating just fine) but everyone has a lifetime of other people’s social conditioning and media etc that’s socially conditioning them to still assosciate muscles with “likely to have those good subcomms that indicate high survival/replication value” whether the guy actually has them or not.

Far as my understanding of evopsych goes, none of that really contradicts anything in it.

If evopsych contradicts what we see demonstated infield consistently, then evopsych has to be re-evaluated/tweaked or added to or subtracted from or a new theory formed entirely, because reality trumps theory.

“or even how to verbalize it, since you often prefer to show a vid to demonstrate your points.”

lol just ’cause 1) a lot of subcomms are visual so a video of a guy leaning back relaxed as he makes solid eye-contact with a girl is very easy to see in one second of a video VS a paragraph of me describing it and you trying to visualize it in your head (especially if you don’t KNOW what good subcomms look like already) and 2) I could go into a TON more detail but my posts are 500 pages as it is lol I could break down the subcomms/dynamics in 10 seconds of a Tyler pickup for like 100 pages, there’s SO much that happens SO fast.

“I also include appearance in subcomms, which includes grooming, dress, appearance (includes muscles, height, frame, facial structure, hair, etc).”

Can’t do that. You can’t just throw that in there like that because it sounds good to you lol Those things may, because of our social conditioning, indicate that a guy with them is more likely to HAVE good subcomms that are ACTUALLY attractive/arousing, but those things themselves are NOT subcomms. ie – “confidence” doesn’t indicate that there’s a high likelihood you will have “confidence”. Confidence IS a subcomm and when you have it, you HAVE it. Whereas looks can imply that you are LIKELY to have confidence or likely to NOT have confidence, but it’s the confidence ITSELF that is the subcomm beacuse confidence doesn’t indicate you are likely to have confidence, if you have it then you have it.

@Ajax Parallax
“why would you not adapt in favor of unnecessarily handicapping yourself over your principles”

Because we are getting to the truth of how attraction actually works, not just trying to get guys laid. I’ve explained multiple times why this nuance is important.

“I tried to see online if they made cameras today that took pictures of subcomms”

They do, it’s called a video camera. And it would be nice if you had one to record your story when it was happening so we could go through it and I could point out all the subcomms he was displaying that led up to how things played out, but we can’t, so we have to rely on you telling the story from a biased perspective leaving out TONS of details that you don’t think are important. Just like every other story where it turns out the jacked guy who got laid also happened to have amazing subcomms and the nerdy loser who got made fun of was displaying bad sucomms.

That’s why I post infield hidden camera footage, where we can all SEE the subcomms for ourselves and see how they lead to the reaction they get.

With regards to the photo, if the girls KNOW he has good subcomms (and it’s hard to imagine he doesn’t look high-value when you guys are all popping envy boners over his body reacting to him…or maybe you were all ignoring him at that point with your backs to him and you’re right, who knows, you didn’t videotape it and you have a biased perspective so we can’t really trust your summary just like we couldn’t trust Blaximus’ summary of a guy who was jacked with brain damage and got laid but then it turns out Blaximus forgot to mention that he was displaying amazing subcomms etc), so a photo of him helps them remember his good subcomms just like you and I might both look at a photo of a sunset but YOU had a bunch of really good memories of that sunset so that photo triggers different shit in you when you see it than it does for me.

@Rollo
“Even Tyler cultivated a Look:”

Yes, because back then they were coming out of the same social conditioning you’re currently still under where you think looks matter. They didn’t realize back then that ultimately what attraction boils down to are your subcomms, so they were fully bought into the looks thing. Plus as Mystery said, having a unique look can give a girl an easy way to open you (“oh I love your Pimp the Clown shirt!!” “oh those are cool earrings!”) if she’s attracted to your subcomms you’re displaying and she wants to engage you.

Plus there’s the BradP breakdown of “sexy stereotypes” where, his favorite example being he wore a leather jacket and a girl told him it reminded her of Uncle Jesse from Full House and said Uncle Jesse was sexy, and he benefitted from fitting that “sexy stereotype”. But her thinking Uncle Jesse was sexy was because Uncle Jesse on Full House has excellent subcomms, and she was socially conditioned by watching the show to think “leather jacket = high likelihood this guy will have the same good sexy subcomms that Uncle Jesse has” and so she shows interest in meeting BradP to find out if he DOES have those subcomms, and when he does, she wants to fuck him.

That all said, when we finally figured out that looks don’t matter and it’s all subcomms and guys like Tyler gained enough infield experience to *HAVE* solid subcomms…….I mean, do you think Tyler is maximizing his looks here with that hair and that plain t-shirt?:

’cause that girl doesn’t seem to give a shit. Maybe she didn’t read the flawed Harvard studies?

Most of us have gone out purposely dressed/groomed shitty just to practice our subcomms and shatter our limiting beliefs. The RSD guys just dress normal infield these days and have for years.

The GIRLS don’t care what you’re wearing, but the bouncers that allow you to enter the club where those girls ARE, care lol

@Ajax Parallax
“It found that in terms of SMV and accepted physical attractiveness traits, the differences in attractiveness between M-F short-term couplings was within a fairly narrow one or two point range.”

Tyler says “lol wut”?:

“Is this just more junk *science*?”

Very likely, because the field contradicts it unless you think Tyler with that bald spot and this girl he picks up who passes up a chance for a taller better looking guy for Tyler, are within two points lol. If you find the study we can look at where the flaws in the experiment’s design are.

“by and large turned out to be extremely LSEs”

I’ve seen ugly dudes with LSE and HSE, no real correlation. Game works better on HSE girls. And how many of those dudes were even trying for the HSE girls (or even thought they could GET HSE girls, with their social conditioning telling them they don’t deserve them)? etc etc lots of questions before we could make any kind of consistent correlation/conclusion.


YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Original Link

@kfg
““Why does the kid prefer the sweet taste to begin with?”

It turns out that the physiological affect of sugar can be induced simply by touching a bit of something sweet to the tongue, even in endurance athletes.

And so by digging deep enough to get out of their familiar field (and into psychology) 90% of what we have learned about sports physiology over the past century or so can be thrown in the trash.

Psychosomatic effects dominate the physical.”

This is an example of drilling deeper and what I’m trying to get Rollo to do and why I’m saying those 20 years of research don’t really matter if the initial premise/ideas are misunderstood. How could someone who doesn’t understand attraction design an experiment that determine how attraction works? They don’t even know what they’re looking for let alone how all the outside factors influence it and where the flaws in their experiments will be.

So yes, infield trumps 20 years of research if that research doesn’t align with what’s happening infield.

But if you asked someone before they figured out the physiological shit, they would go “BRO, we got 20 YEARS OF RESEARCH. Oh, oh, you think it might be WRONG?? 20 YEARS?? GUESS I’LL JUST SHUT DOWN MY BLOG OH WELL SURE IS A SHAME I HAVE TO SHUT DOWN MY ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD BECAUSE WE CAN’T “KNOW” ANYTHING THIS IS A VERY MATURE RESPONSE I’M MAKING AND NOT AT ALL AN EMOTIONAL OVERREACTION WHERE I’M ARGUING FEELS AND TRYING TO SHAME INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY DEBATE DATA” lol

@schlemrach
“Yet you’re dropping bitchy comments about Tyler’s illegitimate kids and rebuffing Yareally’s patently sincere attempts to reconcile by pulling this bullshit “but Scray says” stuff? What the fuck is going on? Did you get hacked?”

lol I wondered the same, but the snark is STILL going on even when we’re just trying to have an actual discussion/debate. I don’t care what Scray says, Scray might say wrong shit, who knows, we aren’t joined at the hip, and Rollo’s summaries of our points have been WILDLY off the mark repeatedly contradicting what we’re ACTUALLY saying so who knows WHAT Rollo thinks Scray is actually saying at this point.

I’m choosing to sum this up to a combo of him being sick and the incredible power the FI can have over guys, even Red Pill guys. It’s like performing an exorcism to get that pill fully swallowed.

And/or we’re accidentally hitting some kind of unexpected sore spots, like the beastiality thing and the study that literally shows women being sexually aroused watching bonobos fuck etc hit some kind of nuclear launch button when it’s like, I dunno the data shows it, Nancy Friday’s book is an encouraged read but god forbid we mention a study shows women got aroused watching apes or the abundance dogs-fucking-women porn in the dark corners of the internet? Like why is this data so controversial?

I get that a lot of TRM is based around the “looks, money, game, pick two” thing, and saying “ehh that doesn’t really hold up infield” comes off like some kind of personal attack, but like, if that’s not accurate then it should be updated for the sake of teaching men accurate information that will help them fix their lives faster.

Tyler explains in his videos that he’s just reporting what’s happening infield…he would throw out all his old ideas today if the data showed they were flawed, all he cares about (and all most of us cared about in the oldschool PUA community) is finding out the truth about how attraction/seduction/social dynamics/etc work even if it’s uncomfortable or we’re forced to re-evaluate or revise stuff or throw shit out ENTIRELY or drill deeper etc

And I get that the implication that teaching inaccurate stuff can result in suicides and divorce rapes and Elliot Rodgers etc is a touchy subject that could be taken as us saying “look you’re making men commit suicide” and I know that’s a touchy subject for Rollo especially…BUT, at the end of the day, it’s important to understand WHY we harp on this stuff and WHY we are drilling this deep into the subject, because the chain reaction of things that come from sending guys down the wrong path really DO lead to those guys ending up in those terrible circumstances and I’m sure we ALL want to prevent that, which is why it’s necessary to re-evaluate our theories if the infield evidence doesn’t align.

There’s no disrespect intended, I respect the fuck out of Rollo and his writing and like I say, Hypergamy and Solipsism and War Brides etc are fucking brilliant cases of Rollo drilling deep into a controversial subject to figure out incredibly nuanced shit that holds up infield. That’s why it’s such a mindfuck to see such actively hostile resistance to drilling deep on another area when there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that it needs to be drilled deeper.

“The early part of this debate seemed like you two were talking past each other. That’s fine–this is a complicated subject. But after yareally’s olive branch post of fourteen, calibrated zero-snark clarification points, your responses look insane to me.”

I have no idea what the fuck that was lol As far as I know there’s nothing going on behind the scenes or anything. I don’t even really know why Scray and I are suddenly considered butt-buddies who have to agree on everything. My only interaction with Scray is here in these comments, we aren’t conspiring or anything, we may even have different conclusions etc and will end up debating those differences in our conversations like we did with the nerd-orgy thing a page back, but apparently my questions can’t be answered unless Scray’s posts are duplicates of mine…or something? I don’t get Scray’s relevance in my discussion with Rollo at all lol

“I am finding my way again”

Props on working on handling your shit. Regardless of the fighting in these discussions, all of us are here because we made the choice to try to improve our lives (except for the guys who are just shitposting lol) and that’s something everyone should be proud of (and base some of their good subcomms like confidence on lol)

@IAS
“right away instead of several other ones he did in between. It seems he had some kind of tactic in doing so, I just didn’t get what it was.”

Fuck if I know lol the “Now you get it” thing seems to be some kind of cryptic “top that, motherfuckers” message but I have no idea what it means lol

@Via Vitae
“I don’t know, maybe he was annoyed. I was annoyed. Other guys were annoyed”

1) Scray and I are annoyed that our positions keep being misrepresented and summarized directly opposite to what we’re actually saying, like I just posted an ALL CAPS HUGE EXPLANATION step by step because what Rollo quoted from me didn’t actually say what he was arguing it said and that’s been happening over and over to where it’s like is this being done on purpose is it April Fool’s or something? It literally seems intentional but I can’t imagine that to be true

2) Be annoyed. I mean, ya, I wish I could just state what I’m saying the infield evidence shows and everyone would accept it. But they don’t and it’s like well okay, then I’m going to post more evidence and explain my points and ask you to defend your points. Is that annoying? Maybe.

But you know what else is annoying? Watching jacked rich buddies I’ve met infield developing booze/drug problems and shit because they’re trying to numb the internal self-loathing they have over not being able to get laid despite having what society told them would help them get laid and they don’t know how to deal with that other than get blackout fucked up and just hope pussy winds up on their lap like it was supposed to.

You know what else is annoying? Watching buddies get into steroids and developing body image issues because they’re not getting the sexual arousal from women that society (and Harvard studies etc) told them they would get so they figure they must need to keep working on their looks as they fuck their bodies up and just keep their shitty internals. And they won’t listen to me telling them they’re good enough as they are because if they question the narrative that looks matter, guys like Keyser spam retarded shaming nonsense at them for even QUESTIONING the narrative and guys they look up and respect who don’t realize they’re still under social conditioning promote the same socially conditioned ideas, so they’re 100% convinced that if they just keep going down that path it’ll all work out.

You know what else is anonying? Watching buddies pass up opportunities to go out and meet women because they’re working 80 hour workweeks trying to make enough money to buy shit they think will get them laid, and then being massively depressed and lonely and complaining about it because all they want is a girl to cuddle up with and watch Netflix on their xmas vacation from that job they don’t even LIKE.

You know what else is annoying? Watching buddies who I KNOW are AMAZING dudes, who are literally doctors, lawyers, etc, SCARED to go talk to some stupid 21yo girl in a bar who lives at home with her parents and works at wal-mart and starved herself all day so she could squeeze herself into that dress and reject him because he walks over not thinking he DESERVES her, with all he’s done in his life.

So ya, I guess this discussion is annoying. But hey, deal with it. ’cause the nuances we’re talking about are important for putting guys on the right path to understanding what actually attracts women and where to focus their energy so they can escape the FI and quit running the socially conditioned rat race.

If we can’t discuss a topic like this HERE, in the place where Hypergamy, Solipsism, War Brides, etc have been fully deconstructed and analyzed…if THIS topic is off-limits for some reason…I mean, okay, but that’s ultimately doing a disservice to men.

@SJF
“YaReally and Scray were trying to invent a schematic”

We are not inventing anything. We are reporting how shit works infield. We have tons of infield footage demonstrating it.

“Like he said 15 years of writing, two books and 450 essays dealing with the panoply of RED PILL”

That stuff is awesome and I hold it in high regard and link it to people who need help. But I don’t link the looks/money related stuff because it’s inaccurate.

“whereas YaReally so rudely opines that he is only talking about Red Pill (PUA style) insofar as it means banging <25 y.o."

You consider everything I post to be rude lol Disagreeing isn't aggression. I could sugarcoat everything I say but then my posts would be twice as long and full of fluff that doesn't really matter. I'm trying to get a VERY nuanced VERY deep point across as fast and efficient as I can.

As I've said before: if you are telling me how to pick up and bang <25yo's and you aren't picking up and banging <25yo's, that's FINE…Aunt Giggles herself can teach it, as long as what you say aligns with what we see infield. But if what you say DOESN'T align with what those of us in the field picking up and banging <25yo's are finding, then sorry, your theories are just theories.

"Scray was plain and simple, rudely asserting an agenda in a Tao of Badass way."

Scray has always been kind of a dick in his style of writing. But that doesn't make the stuff he's saying wrong by default and his position has been REPEATEDLY misrepresented just like mine has, when we actually look at the quotes of what he's said which comes off as extremely dishonest debate tactics and I can't blame him for being "rude" when his position is misrepresented over and over.

"My bias is for a more balanced discussion on red pill awareness and game."

I would love it. But apparently mentioning anything about dogs or apes or evidence or questioning anything suddenly results in 20 snarky attacks and misrepresenting our positions and overall overly emotional lashing out about "I GUESS I'LL SHUT DOWN MY BLOG BETTER TELL TYLER TO SHUT DOWN RSD BASED ON THIS MISREPRESENTED POSITION!!!" tantrum instead of just simple discussion of the evidence and answering eachother's questions.


YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Original Link

@kfg
“I would predict that large portions of it will be and other portions modified.”

This is part of why the early PUA community was so exciting. We had all this shit people told us about how attraction “works” and it turned out that tons of it was bullshit and we were able to stunt all over their studies and rules and just make shit happen infield, banging girls “out of our league” and defying shit like having to wait 3 dates to have sex and laughing at the “you either have it or you don’t, you’re either born with it or you aren’t” shit social conditioning told us, etc.

And we don’t care about anything but what works. If we found out being jacked mattered, we would make guys go get jacked but there’s no real evidence to support it and tons to support that looks don’t actually matter. I will throw out everything I think I know about pickup and start over, if the field evidence consistently contradicts it.

That’s why we’re VERY skeptical of studies now. The first thing I look at before I read any other part of a study is how the experiment was designed because most of them are extremely flawed when you understand how attraction works and they’re putting out shitty inaccurate conclusions that keep guys trapped in the FI.

I’m totally open to studies, as long as the study itself is well designed. If it’s not, then its data is useless if it contradicts what we see infield. When I open a study titled “We all KNOW muscles are sexy, but why are they SOOOOO sexy???” and it’s a self-survey of photographs it’s like plz stop this is not science lol

“I believe I agree with Scray on preferring actual measurement over reporting. I’d like to know which parts of the subject’s brains and genitals “lit up.””

Scray’s study sounds fairrrrrrly solid to me (not perfect but pretty solid). A lot more solid than self-surveying or “I saw my stripper with amazing stripper-level subcomms make a girl’s nipples hard and would probably guess all their pussies were wet too because he just stood near them (I won’t bother acknowleding any subcomms a male stripper would have, those probably aren’t important since I already know it’s their looks that trigger sexual arousal)” nonsense.

“They did find a high degree of agreement. The guys they liked the looks of turned out to be the guys they liked interacting with”

In something like this it’s like Scray’s study where I want to see the porn they were looking at ’cause I wanna look at the subcomms in it since they’re glossing over that in the study…in THIS study I want to know what that “interacting with” consisted of. I want to see the infield footage of those interactions because I want to see what the guys’ subcomms were like and if they were flipping attraction triggers properly etc.

You can’t have an ugly guy with shitty subcomms who thinks the girl is on a pedestal compared to him as he bores a girl to death blabbing while staring at the floor, and then have a hot guy with amazing subcomms teasing her negging her push pulling her giving her solid eye-contact looking confident etc and then be like “SEE GIRLS ENJOY INTERACTING WITH HOT GUYS MORE”, that’s not science lol That’s not ANYTHING.

But the people designing those studies often don’t even realize that what happens IN that interaction is the important part they should be providing in their data. They don’t know what they don’t know, so how can their study be any good? Unless someone who understands this shit looks at the experiment and goes “nope, this is rock solid”

“There is a reason that certain looks imply certain characteristics: because they have to.”

Big muscles imply that you lift heavy things, and probably have some degree of willpower/dedication to achieving goals, I’d agree with that much lol But the idea that big muscles imply you’re confident, dominant, sexually confident, etc (the list of subcomms I posted) are all socially conditioned ideas.

@Bromeo
“I’m just saying you cant discredit looks and muscularity because all the infield footage shows a pua with high level game pulling girls.”

The question to REALLY ask is this: Would Tyler’s level of game even BE considered a “high level of game” if guys across the board worldwide were ALL conditioned, from birth, 24/7, to believe 100% in their world, have 100% confidence, feel 100% entitled to women, etc (basically if we could put Blaximus’ brain inside every male baby’s head)?

All Tyler is REALLY doing is going up and just shooting the shit but with zero social conditioning holding him back. Like, teasing a girl IS a “game tactic” that spikes attraction…but if you LITERALLY believed to your CORE that girls were just silly and not to be taken seriously (the way an older brother treats his little sister), you would just NATURALLY tease her. It wouldn’t BE a “game tactic”, it would just be a result of your internals.

The only reason Tyler’s game is “high level game” is because all the rest of us WASTED the majority of our lives following the FI that told us we WEREN’T enough and DIDN’T deserve women and that we needed to be rich and good looking to deserve women, and that we should sit down and shut up and don’t offend people and don’t have our own opinions and don’t say them out loud and don’t tease girls and go chase all these things that won’t actually help you etc etc

So compared to us, ya, his game looks like some high level shit. But if we could fully break men out of the FI, which is what we’re trying to help happen with this discussion, and program them with BETTER information and BETTER data and BETTER messages from birth…EVERYONE would just NATURALLY be executing Tyler’s “high level game”.

I mean what happens when you encourage someone like that their entire life? To believe they’re entitled to everything and deserve everything and they don’t need to justify feeling like they own the world etc etc? Well, women have been hearing those message from birth. Would everyone agree that women tend to have a delusional sense of their self worth that fuels a ton of their behavior like feeling entitled to ANYTHING they want and expecting like, a lawyer to pay for their dinner and then tooling him to their friends as they swipe on to the next chode etc etc? When that chick is like a 4/10 lol

GIRLS get programmed with the right messages. But as guys we mainly care whether they make our dicks hard, so the delusionally confident 4/10 girl who’s 100% convinced she’s a 10/10 is still a 4/10 to us. But the delusionally confident 4/10 GUY who’s 100% convinced he’s a 10/10? Well, girls ping off their environment for how to feel and what you feel they feel and, well, you get Tyler.

We’d rather no one had to learn game at all. We wish it was just a couple “hey make sure she’s isolated so you don’t trigger ASD” notes that guys who’ve grown up confident and entitled from birth could read in a Maxim article and that’s all they need to take their results from awesome to even MORE awesome.

But that’s not how the world works. Right now the world sends men on wild goose chases and prevents them from developing the “high level game” that Tyler has. And that happens because the “looks/money matter” narrative is pushed onto them and keeps them trapped.

“What Rollo and others are getting frustrated with is your assertion purely on what reality (infield videos) is showing us as fact but anything we must research (intangible) like biological factors as “probably true” but we cant be sure/no one knows.”

I mean, is that really such a controversial position to take? If there’s no solid evidence on why something is happening then it’s still technically a theory/hypothesis (whatever the science lingo is) and should be open for questioning, especially if what we can observe infield contradicts parts of it or indicates that we should be drilling deeper into it.

Isn’t that just how science is supposed to work?

“Its like watching objects fall in a video due to gravity and accepting everything about the object, environment true from sound and visuals but not accepting any kind of scientific research proving the existence of gravity because “we can never be sure” so we will only go by the video proof.”

It depends entirely on the “scientific research” is our point. That Harvard “Why is being so jacked so fuckin sexxxxy???? We asked a dozen women to look at photographs and self-survey–” study is flawed and we can point out (and have pointed out) those flaws. And infield suggests a different conlusion.

In that scenario I think it’s perfectly fair to not accept that “scientific research”, because it’s shitty research.

I will happy accept GOOD scientific research with WELL DESIGNED experiments that aren’t blatantly flawed. But we can’t accept BAD SCIENCE just because it’s really comfortable and sounds really good and fits really nice and means we don’t have to admit we were ever wrong or off-base.

Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness…give me truth.

“This is absolutely crazy. Just cause some guys in the pua scene have recorded some things infield you will toss out 20 years of peer-reviewed research?”

We technically have like 15-ish years of mass-researched infield data behind what we’re saying. So I mean, do I gotta wait 5 more years before what I’m saying isn’t controversial?

Feminists have like 50 years of research saying 1 in 1 women is raped every 10 seconds on college campuses where they’re oppressed and learning to work jobs where they’re earn 1% of men’s wages…will you toss that out just because their research is a little flawed? When Obama HIMSELF is talking about the wage gap and every news show is reporting about all this campus rape-fest happening 24/7?? It’s like 50 YEARS man, you can’t just throw that OUT.

Yes, you can. If it doesn’t align with reality. lol

“where is all the footage of the failures (I know you have posted some rejections before)”

Well, I mean, there you go. lol There’s footage of tons of failures to observe the subcomms in. There’s also tons of failures out there infield for you to go experience yourself. Learn what subcomms are and pay attention to them when you’re in interactions and you’ll find the same things the infield is showing.

It’s very consistent that subcomms are the difference between success and failure and these things are observable.

“Stuff like this makes it hard to accept at face value especially when Jullian just released that ten game crap purely to make money”

The irony is that the reason it’s called ten game is because the entire thing is about internal game and believing that you’re a 10 regardless of who you are and what you look like and helping guys develop the internal confidence and good subcomms that I’ve been talking about.

But guys lurking won’t bother checking out Julien’s stuff because guys like you, a guy who hasn’t checked it out and thinks PUA in general is kind of retarded, will post stuff like “this is crap he’s making just to milk suckers out of their money”

And so the FI keeps on going, with men being pushed away from resources that might help them develop internal confidence and believe they have self-worth and deserve hot girls without the looks/money society tells them they need.

It’s kind of depressing to see that in a Red Pill community, when you really think of the larger implications given what I’ve said about the messages men are brainwashed with from birth about their value/worth.

I mean most of the guys who are here are here BECAUSE they didn’t get the message that they deserve to feel like a 10 from day one growing up. That’s why Tyler’s game will seem like “high level game” to them instead of just “normal”.

@kfg
“If the twenty years of peer-reviewed research says that creepy guys with punch me face can’t get laid, then yes, toss the research. It’s wrong. Tyler’s videos prove it’s wrong.”

lol one of the reasons I love using Tyler for my examples is because guys who don’t want to swallow the pill will write Mystery off as tall and be like “so whatever, it just works cuz he’s tall”. They’ll write everyone teaching this stuff off with whatever they can to fit the square peg in the round hole.

But they can’t write Tyler off. He flies in the face of everything we thought mattered about looks lol Even his VOICE is annoying instead of badass. There’s NOTHING you can point to on Tyler and be like “that’s considered a huge advantage” lol

That’s why guys will go to his clothing and be like “well….well he has a nice jacket!! SEE he has this Pimp the Clown shirt!!!!” and why I’ll post a vid of Tyler dressed like shit infield doing what he does and then it’s like “well—ummm—welll!! SHUT UP!!! LOOKS MATTER!!!!” lol

If Tyler was a super good-looking tall jacked dude, no one would listen to what he says about how attraction works or looks mattering. He knows it and jokes about it too…he’s like “girls always say to me “you MUST be rich”. Why do they say that? BECAUSE THEY’RE SAYING I’M UGLY😦 They can’t wrap their heads around why I’m so confident so they assume I must have something else going on that they can’t see, and society tells them looks/money and since I clearly don’t have looks, they just assume I MUST have a bunch of money and that’s why I’m confident. So really they’re complimenting me by saying I’m really confident, but they’re also insulting me lol”


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Original Link

@DickBanger
“With all due repsect I’ve always felt that Rollo was a bit of a weenie from his writing and this just confirms it.”

lol I’m happy my shit has helped you but c’mon man no need for name-calling.

@Bromeo
“Yes, infield alone can not be used as a valid baseline for what you are trying to assert.”

Dunno what to tell ya man. The evidence is sitting right there for you to look at. Check it out for yourself. Watch some Keys to the VIP episodes and some infield hidden cam pickup footage etc and watch for the subcomms. They’re just sitting right there in front of you. If you have disagreements with what the field evidence shows, cool, bring it up and we can discuss it.

I’m cool with evo-psych personally, and like I’ve explained repeatedly nothing I’m saying really goes against evo-psych’s principles that I’m aware of. And if it does, well, then evo-psych needs some re-analysis.

@theasdgamer
“Those shit tests happen so fast that I don’t think that the cortex is even involved. I think that the confidence triggers the shit tests automagically. Those shit tests seem to be hard wired.”

The girls don’t really think of them as like “I’m going to test his frame to ensure that he’s really who he portrays himself as and if he passes it I’m going to feel more attraction” lol It happens really fast that’s why video footage is great ’cause you can pause and rewind and go frame by frame through all the dynamics happening.

@hank holiday
“Then, I can make the interaction more sexual there.”

Any time cop related conversation comes up is a good time to joke with a girl about her swiping their handcuffs for later wink wink lol

“Waitress asked “Why you have so many ones” I said “Oh, I been stripping” She laughed and said I didn’t look like a stripper. I told her my ass happened to look fantastic in a thong. She really laughed then. Could have gotten her number, but didn’t. I think I may pay in ones now for a bit and try to provoke that interaction”

lol this is solid, well done.

@SJF
“It is your opinion that you needed to drill deeper on the topics at hand.”

I wouldn’t have said anything at all except that Rollo posted the Harvard study in the last article which promotes inaccurate information that sends guys down the wrong path.

“In my opinion you are trying to dig too deep and it appears to me that you are theorizing instead of reporting.”

Look at the evidence yourself, it’s all right there. Or go out and execute it and see it in action.

“Are there any game deniers here?”

I’ve never said that anyone here is saying game doesn’t work.

“I’m having a hard time understanding what the import of the deep drilling is. What does it mean that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that “it” needs to be drilled deeper. Why do you need to do that?”

I’ve responded to why this is important MULTIPLE times man. In one of my latest replies a couple comments up even. The looks matter thing fucks guys up.

“Also as feedback, you have been seriously transgressing Law #4 (which is say less than necessary, a thing I am often seriouslyguilty of).”

I don’t care lol I’m not trying to make anyone like me. Just reporting field information for the sake of guys getting on the right track to fixing their lives and I am explaining incredibly nuanced points that go against a TON of social conditioning and deeply held beliefs, so I needs me words.

“You are not accomplishing that goal”

It would be a lot easier if guys were going out regularly trying to stick their dick in <25yo girls out of their league (according to social conditioning), watching the endless hours of infield footage and videos explaining stuff like subcomms that I post, and stop misrepresenting my position then arguing against the strawman version of what I'm saying.

"I wish you would. That’s my point."

When I'm married and banging my 45yo trophy wife and tearing shit up with my married bros I'll probably give advice on that. But Rollo covers that stuff just fine far as I'm concerned and my focus is getting more guys to the point where that advice will even be necessary. If you got questions, shoot em and I'll try to answer what I can but like, I don't have any idea what you want me to write or why you think you're being excluded from anything.

@Bromeo
"The funny thing is Yareally and Scary are pushing game to be the be-all end-all of male to female interactions when we are trying to say game is definitely a big factor but looks and muscularity are also advantages"

As I've said multiple times (this is that misrepresenting my position thing I'm talking about SJF), we aren't saying anyone is denying game works or is good. That's never been the discussion. We've even REPEATEDLY said that looks/muscularity will help get you free gimme IOI's. ENDLESS MILLIONS OF TIMES, we've said that shit despite what you guys keep misrepresenting about our position.

Our position is just that those things don't CAUSE sexual attraction and that they don't guarantee building good subcomms, the good subcomms themselves are what cause sexual attraion, and therefore lifting weights is not as important to focus on as developing good subcomms through infield experience is.

"We are using all the resources that we can to get us an advantage"

The resource you advocate men use builds their self-worth around an external that can be taken away or easily fucked with and doesn't guarantee they will develop the ACTUAL core attractive traits that will ACTUALLY get and keep the girls they want. It's a red herring tangent that teaches guys the wrong understanding of how attraction works for real, even if it sounds really good or pumps their state at first to follow that advice.

"If it doesn’t then no biggie but you guys are adamant in slamming looks to a point where its some sort of personal hatred against it."

Inaccurate information in the knoweldge-base fucks guys up. TRM is an incredibly huge source of information and Rollo's books will be read for years to come. It would be nice if those books didn't include inaccurate information is all.

@Via Vitae
"ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION."

The evidence is sitting right there for you to look at.

"Saw a girl asked to be licked and giving her panties to a contestant, Saw another girl drag that same guy to the bathroom. He was a totally jacked male stripper who did not talk"

Ya that's a good epsiode. I already covered this. How much of this breakdown did you pick up on when you watched it and decided that his jacked looks are what caused those results?:

http://yareallyarchive.com/2016/1/#comment-rationalmale-135608

I link the episode there and break it down in retarded levels of detail to explain why he's getting the attraction he's getting and how it's not "well he's jacked so DUHHHHHHH" which is how most guys running under social conditoning will interpret that episode because that summar fits their conditioning.

Please read that post and let me know what parts of my description you find to be inaccurate or inobservable in the video footage.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You look at this footage and don't see ANY of this and just summarize it the way your world view has been conditioned to. But guys like Tyler or myself look at this footage and see a billion little details that align with what we're saying about subcomms and those things are RIGHT THERE for you to observe as you read my description.

The rest of your super brief summaries of the episodes are the same way. You're missing so many details that you don't even realize are there because you haven't studied this shit in depth enough to see it. Read my summary and see how far off-base your version of what happened is.

I'd love to just go through every single episode of the show and break down all the subcomms in every single pickup, but I don't get paid for this and you can learn to do it yourself if you learn to study and spot subcomms, but you'll have to let go of your socially conditioned "it happened cuz he's jacked" response and ask yourself "okay what ELSE is going on though?" and refer to the list of subcomms and watch some vids on subcomms and ideally hit the field a bunch etc etc


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Original Link

@DickBanger
“With all due repsect I’ve always felt that Rollo was a bit of a weenie from his writing and this just confirms it.”

lol I’m happy my shit has helped you but c’mon man no need for name-calling.

@Bromeo
“Yes, infield alone can not be used as a valid baseline for what you are trying to assert.”

Dunno what to tell ya man. The evidence is sitting right there for you to look at. Check it out for yourself. Watch some Keys to the VIP episodes and some infield hidden cam pickup footage etc and watch for the subcomms. They’re just sitting right there in front of you. If you have disagreements with what the field evidence shows, cool, bring it up and we can discuss it.

I’m cool with evo-psych personally, and like I’ve explained repeatedly nothing I’m saying really goes against evo-psych’s principles that I’m aware of. And if it does, well, then evo-psych needs some re-analysis.

@theasdgamer
“Those shit tests happen so fast that I don’t think that the cortex is even involved. I think that the confidence triggers the shit tests automagically. Those shit tests seem to be hard wired.”

The girls don’t really think of them as like “I’m going to test his frame to ensure that he’s really who he portrays himself as and if he passes it I’m going to feel more attraction” lol It happens really fast that’s why video footage is great ’cause you can pause and rewind and go frame by frame through all the dynamics happening.

@hank holiday
“Then, I can make the interaction more sexual there.”

Any time cop related conversation comes up is a good time to joke with a girl about her swiping their handcuffs for later wink wink lol

“Waitress asked “Why you have so many ones” I said “Oh, I been stripping” She laughed and said I didn’t look like a stripper. I told her my ass happened to look fantastic in a thong. She really laughed then. Could have gotten her number, but didn’t. I think I may pay in ones now for a bit and try to provoke that interaction”

lol this is solid, well done.

@SJF
“It is your opinion that you needed to drill deeper on the topics at hand.”

I wouldn’t have said anything at all except that Rollo posted the Harvard study in the last article which promotes inaccurate information that sends guys down the wrong path.

“In my opinion you are trying to dig too deep and it appears to me that you are theorizing instead of reporting.”

Look at the evidence yourself, it’s all right there. Or go out and execute it and see it in action.

“Are there any game deniers here?”

I’ve never said that anyone here is saying game doesn’t work.

“I’m having a hard time understanding what the import of the deep drilling is. What does it mean that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that “it” needs to be drilled deeper. Why do you need to do that?”

I’ve responded to why this is important MULTIPLE times man. In one of my latest replies a couple comments up even. The looks matter thing fucks guys up.

“Also as feedback, you have been seriously transgressing Law #4 (which is say less than necessary, a thing I am often seriouslyguilty of).”

I don’t care lol I’m not trying to make anyone like me. Just reporting field information for the sake of guys getting on the right track to fixing their lives and I am explaining incredibly nuanced points that go against a TON of social conditioning and deeply held beliefs, so I needs me words.

“You are not accomplishing that goal”

It would be a lot easier if guys were going out regularly trying to stick their dick in <25yo girls out of their league (according to social conditioning), watching the endless hours of infield footage and videos explaining stuff like subcomms that I post, and stop misrepresenting my position then arguing against the strawman version of what I'm saying.

"I wish you would. That’s my point."

When I'm married and banging my 45yo trophy wife and tearing shit up with my married bros I'll probably give advice on that. But Rollo covers that stuff just fine far as I'm concerned and my focus is getting more guys to the point where that advice will even be necessary. If you got questions, shoot em and I'll try to answer what I can but like, I don't have any idea what you want me to write or why you think you're being excluded from anything.

@Bromeo
"The funny thing is Yareally and Scary are pushing game to be the be-all end-all of male to female interactions when we are trying to say game is definitely a big factor but looks and muscularity are also advantages"

As I've said multiple times (this is that misrepresenting my position thing I'm talking about SJF), we aren't saying anyone is denying game works or is good. That's never been the discussion. We've even REPEATEDLY said that looks/muscularity will help get you free gimme IOI's. ENDLESS MILLIONS OF TIMES, we've said that shit despite what you guys keep misrepresenting about our position.

Our position is just that those things don't CAUSE sexual attraction and that they don't guarantee building good subcomms, the good subcomms themselves are what cause sexual attraion, and therefore lifting weights is not as important to focus on as developing good subcomms through infield experience is.

"We are using all the resources that we can to get us an advantage"

The resource you advocate men use builds their self-worth around an external that can be taken away or easily fucked with and doesn't guarantee they will develop the ACTUAL core attractive traits that will ACTUALLY get and keep the girls they want. It's a red herring tangent that teaches guys the wrong understanding of how attraction works for real, even if it sounds really good or pumps their state at first to follow that advice.

"If it doesn’t then no biggie but you guys are adamant in slamming looks to a point where its some sort of personal hatred against it."

Inaccurate information in the knoweldge-base fucks guys up. TRM is an incredibly huge source of information and Rollo's books will be read for years to come. It would be nice if those books didn't include inaccurate information is all.

@Via Vitae
"ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION."

The evidence is sitting right there for you to look at.

"Saw a girl asked to be licked and giving her panties to a contestant, Saw another girl drag that same guy to the bathroom. He was a totally jacked male stripper who did not talk"

Ya that's a good epsiode. I already covered this. How much of this breakdown did you pick up on when you watched it and decided that his jacked looks are what caused those results?:

http://yareallyarchive.com/2016/1/#comment-rationalmale-135608

I link the episode there and break it down in retarded levels of detail to explain why he's getting the attraction he's getting and how it's not "well he's jacked so DUHHHHHHH" which is how most guys running under social conditoning will interpret that episode because that summar fits their conditioning.

Please read that post and let me know what parts of my description you find to be inaccurate or inobservable in the video footage.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You look at this footage and don't see ANY of this and just summarize it the way your world view has been conditioned to. But guys like Tyler or myself look at this footage and see a billion little details that align with what we're saying about subcomms and those things are RIGHT THERE for you to observe as you read my description.

The rest of your super brief summaries of the episodes are the same way. You're missing so many details that you don't even realize are there because you haven't studied this shit in depth enough to see it. Read my summary and see how far off-base your version of what happened is.

I'd love to just go through every single episode of the show and break down all the subcomms in every single pickup, but I don't get paid for this and you can learn to do it yourself if you learn to study and spot subcomms, but you'll have to let go of your socially conditioned "it happened cuz he's jacked" response and ask yourself "okay what ELSE is going on though?" and refer to the list of subcomms and watch some vids on subcomms and ideally hit the field a bunch etc etc


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Original Link

@Bromeo
“why is it so far fetched and hard for a jacked dude who lifts to also build those very same internals.”

As I’ve answered multiple times: every hour you spend in the gym is anywhere between 1 and like 20+ sets/interactions you could be entering that would help develop your subcomms. Most guys won’t do the gym AND sarge on the same night, they’ll pick one or the other. Work out 3 nights a week to get jacked and that’s 3 nights you’re missing opening sets. Say you’re only going out an hour a night and you’re only doing like 10 sets in an hour. That’s 30 sets per week you’re missing out on. In a month that 120 sets less developed subcomms. In a year that’s 1440 opportunities to develop your subcomms (the things that are actually attractive and allow Tyler to do what he does) you threw away to chase getting build for free IOIs that according to Scray’s study aren’t even sexual arousal, and to end up having 1440 sets less subcomms than the guy who skipped the gym to go socialize.

5 years down the road that same guy ends up jacked with 7200 less sets under his belt than the other guy. That makes a difference.

Even if you gym AND sarge you’re still ending up with less experience developing your subcomms (the things that are actually attractive) for every hour you’re at the gym instead of sarging. But no one explains that trade-off to newbies because of the “trust me bro just get jacked and pussy will fall into your lap” social conditioning.

@SJF
“I just think only talking about banging young chicks is a monopolization of the flow of ideas here even though most of gaming women is universally applicable.”

Dunno what to tell ya man, you can scroll past my posts like anyone else and like I scroll past everyone arguing with the manosphere groupie girls that attention-whore here. And no one is keeping you from bringing up topics you want to see discussed.

@theasdgamer
“Nobody is saying this shit. We are saying that LOTS of jacked dudes have shitty internals, not ALL jacked dudes. Lots of dudes with shitty internals get jacked and don’t fix their shitty internals and wonder why they have problems with women. And these same dudes spend time in the gym instead of going out and being around women and learning to fix their shitty internals. If you can both sarge and go to the gym, great! If you have to choose, sarging is the better option if you want to get laid.”

This.

I think it’s interesting that the guys who seem to 100% grasp what I’m saying no problem are the more self-admittedly spergy posters who just think in terms of logic. But the guys who are hardcore rejecting everything I’m saying as if I’m trying to cut the head off a fucking dragon here, are the guys who are Naturals and/or really emotionally invested in the looks thing and are riled up at the very notion of questioning it or looking at counter-evidence and are focused on the surface level “well who cares!! whatever man just maximize shit!!!” and don’t care about understanding the detailed nuances of the social dynamics going on. What I’ve been saying has been simple basic logic from the start, which is very easy to understand if you just shut off the emotional reaction to what I’m saying and follow the simple logic like a robot.

@Via Vitae
“Agreed. I could not tell for sure tell from the video, but I suspect he might have been packing a deagle if you know what I mean ;)”

lol who knows (except that chick who saw him perform before). For real though: did you read my breakdown of his interactions and is there anything in what I wrote that you disagree with or anything I wrote that doesn’t look like what’s happening in the videos to you? ie – is there anything in my breakdown that I can clarify about his interactions or any questions you have about them, or would you agree that my breakdown is pointing out some pretty observable dynamics going on that you can see when you rewatch it now after having read my breakdown?

@having a bad day
“if for no other reason, the ethics in play in experimental lab work…lol”

lol almost fucked a girl with a boyfriend last night in front of her friends who know she has a boyfriend. What’s Harvard’s E-Mail address, I’m sure we can figure out a study that wouldn’t be in any way controversial that could explain why that girl almost sucked my dick. The Harvard guys will probably sign their wives up to take part in that “suck some other guy’s dick” experiment right? For SCIENCE!!

“my take is that hypergamy is firmware based, bc logically it has to be… that’s the only way ‘attraction is not a choice’ would be able to happen… and WHY tyler can take girls off ‘better looking’/taller/etc guys…regardless of the current social standard of attractiveness… bc otherwise there would be more variability in which subcomms ‘work’… and there aren’t… the same subcomms work across cultures, even across verbal language barriers…”

I agree with this. I think Hypergamy is hardwired shit. We didn’t have a term for Hypergamy in the PUA community (which is part of why I thought “holy shit this guy is brilliant” when I first read Rollo’s Hypergamy stuff that COMPLETELY explained and aligned with everything we were seeing infield), but ultimately most of PUA is just teaching guys how to efficiently trigger a girl’s Hypergamy by convincing her that you’re the highest value man in the room (through various means, including manipulating her social conditioning by basically mini-social-conditioning her in the moment to think your traits are the ones that mean a guy is likely to have those good subcomms the same way Pavlov trained his dog to drool over a bell (but much faster) etc). It just turns out that the looks don’t really factor into that, except on Tinder etc where it’s just a photo and she can’t really tell what your subcomms will be but assumes, from her social conditioning, that good looks mean you’ll have good subcomms.

I personally (and everything I’ve seen infield and in our collection of data) have seen no way to fuck with Hypergamy or counter it or change it and haven’t seen anything infield that goes against it or discredits it and a ton of stuff that supports it, so to me Hypergamy seems like a rock solid concept and saying it’s hardwired is probably a safe bet.

(and no, Rollo, I don’t care if Scray agrees or not, and even if I did Scray is just saying that YES Hypergamy clearly exists but the reasons it exists (ie – is it hardwired) isn’t definitively proven which I don’t think is that controversial since it’s not like he runs around shouting “HYPERGAMY DON’T REAL!!! SHUT DOWN TRM BLOG NO ONE READ ROLLOS STUFF AHHH!!!” He LITERALLY only brought the lack of definitive proof up in a convo thread where a convo about scientific studies was being discussed and that’s the only time he’s ever mentioned it)

“fify…yes… as evidenced by in-field experience…”

lol ya, arousal my bad there’s a lot of nuanced terminology going around in this discussion. We are discussing “pussy-wetting involuntary sexual responses” for the sake of Alpha Fucks like the male strippers Rollo mentioned caused.

“my mental model is that the subcomms/attitude cues are themselves the evolved ‘genetically superior’ traits… that are genetically passable”

I don’t disagree with this in that I don’t have a theory either way and don’t have a big interest in the topic. PUA community doesn’t really know WHY confidence triggers hardwired arousal responses, so that’s open to debate, it could very well be an evolved thing, that sounds as good a theory as any. But the confidence itself is what triggers that response and the association of “looks = he will probably have confidence” is socially conditioned and can be manipulated or changed in time.

And to re-state for the millionth time incase Rollo skims this part: THE SUBCOMMS TRIGGERING AROUSAL RESPONSES IS WHAT’S HARDWIRED (how those specific ones became the ones that do it = who knows, not me, I’m open to any suggestions on it)…….AND THE ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN “LOOKS = MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THOSE SUBCOMMS” IS WHAT’S SOCIALLY CONDITIONED. I AM ****NOT**** SAYING THAT THE SUBCOMMS THAT TRIGGER AROUSAL RESPONSES ARE SOCIALLY CONDITIONED THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

“and so then, logically, our advice to get in-field and put in the work learning game/pua instead of ‘just lift, bro’, is evolutionarily solid advice…”

lol like I say, Tyler’s game wouldn’t look so amazing (and Tyler himself admits he’s not even doing anything crazy wild amazing out there and you can see in his infields they aren’t crazy madness no one else could do) if boys were getting the same inner game training Tyler’s put himself through when they were babies, ie – all positive reinforcement that they have value and deserve 10s and girls aren’t on pedestals and lots of interaction with girls etc etc etc We would probably have a ton of Blaximus level Naturals around who just don’t think about any of this and slay a bunch of poon and make Tyler’s skills look amateur.

But we were all sidetracked by the FI and I think we should be focusing on helping men escape it if the data supports that we don’t need what the FI is pushing.

“bc LEADING her through an ’emotional rollercoaster’ shows her hindbrain that you really ARE adaptive and successful to all environments”

I don’t disagree with this. Part of why just going for the kiss even if you get rejected and learning to no be fazed by that and just calibrate by pulling back, gaming some more, and trying again when she has a higher buying temp is that you’re subtly demonstrating to her “if I cross a line, I’m socially savvy enough to back off and recalibrate and not make a big deal out of it and then try again later at a more appropriate moment in the interaction” which tells her that if she goes home with you and fucks you, you’re probably going to be calibrated and make it a good experience and not take things too fast and not get butthurt if she needs you to slow up etc etc

So you’re technically showing her that you’re smoothly adaptive to what’s happening.

“and ‘social conditioning’ and making inferences therefrom as an adaptive trait”

Social conditioning is fucking GREAT. People who don’t succumb to ANY social conditioning end up in jail because they just don’t give a fuck about rules or laws or anything lol Social conditioning keeps you from grabbing a knife by the blade and driving through a stop sign lol

It’s just that the FI hijacked social conditioning to fuck men up, and it’s worked.

“all in all, it’s a pretty tight match for what puas figured out through trial and error in-field”

Mystery didn’t like, create his method and then go find evidence to support it. He just went out, a fuckload, experimenting a ton, and pieced shit together. Tyler actually edited the original Mystery Method doc for him (giving him value so he could roll with Mystery and learn from him) and Tyler specifically sought out all the top names in the community to sarge with them and try to learn from them. I remember a time where you could reload the forums and see a dozen new field/lay reports a day, it was amazing, so many guys focused on a single purpose: figure out what works, and field test EVERYTHING and compare notes and look for patterns/consistencies then field test THOSE, etc

“my take on it is that girls ping their environment all the time, so they can tell what a ‘high-value’ (conforming) man is… based on enviro cues… (this is different than them reacting to arousal cues…).”

And part of what we do in game is learn to develop strong frames that dominate the girls’ frame when she’s pinging off us and dominate other men’s frames so that when she pings off them she gets the feedback that we’re the higher value guy because those guys are reacting to us as such, so we are basically very quickly mini-social-conditioning her to believe in our value system where we represent the highest value possible.

“yes…but, as long as the guy meets the standard of socialized attractiveness AND doesn’t display any non-masculine (chodey/beta) subcomms… she WILL get wet…”

I would change “she WILL get wet” to “she WILL show non-arousal INTEREST” (aka the free gimme IOIs). It’s the actual demonstrating/experiencing those subcomms that triggers the wetness. Like you might see a scary guy on TV staring at people and feel ya that’s scary, but when that guy walks into your house and stands inches away from you and locks eye-contact with YOU specifically it’s like “woah shit!!!” and you get way more intense feelings triggered.

And the problem with just “don’t display bad subcomms and you’ll get laid” is that to NOT display any bad subcomms you would have to basically be a statue and it’s not real likely she’s going to just see you and hike her skirt up whip out your dick and slide on, there’s going to be SOME kind of interaction or eye-contact or walking or standing with whatever posture (notice that Michaelangelo’s David is standing in a specific good-subcomms pose, which the Doors singer mimicked etc), like you’re going to demonstrate at least a few subcomms good or bad, even if it’s the bare minimum (like when we just use eye-contact and subcomms to get a makeout with the girl without talking etc), and that’s where her brain is going to process them. So the idea of “as long as you don’t show any bad subcomms” becomes irrelevant in the end. Experiencing those subcomms is what triggers her arousal responses.

skimming the rest cause I gotta go shower up to sarge soon lol but it looks like we’re mostly on the same page anyway, there’s a lot of good points/phrasing/further explanations to my points/etc in your post and I’ll read it more in depth later for fun


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Original Link

@Bromeo
“why is it so far fetched and hard for a jacked dude who lifts to also build those very same internals.”

As I’ve answered multiple times: every hour you spend in the gym is anywhere between 1 and like 20+ sets/interactions you could be entering that would help develop your subcomms. Most guys won’t do the gym AND sarge on the same night, they’ll pick one or the other. Work out 3 nights a week to get jacked and that’s 3 nights you’re missing opening sets. Say you’re only going out an hour a night and you’re only doing like 10 sets in an hour. That’s 30 sets per week you’re missing out on. In a month that 120 sets less developed subcomms. In a year that’s 1440 opportunities to develop your subcomms (the things that are actually attractive and allow Tyler to do what he does) you threw away to chase getting build for free IOIs that according to Scray’s study aren’t even sexual arousal, and to end up having 1440 sets less subcomms than the guy who skipped the gym to go socialize.

5 years down the road that same guy ends up jacked with 7200 less sets under his belt than the other guy. That makes a difference.

Even if you gym AND sarge you’re still ending up with less experience developing your subcomms (the things that are actually attractive) for every hour you’re at the gym instead of sarging. But no one explains that trade-off to newbies because of the “trust me bro just get jacked and pussy will fall into your lap” social conditioning.

@SJF
“I just think only talking about banging young chicks is a monopolization of the flow of ideas here even though most of gaming women is universally applicable.”

Dunno what to tell ya man, you can scroll past my posts like anyone else and like I scroll past everyone arguing with the manosphere groupie girls that attention-whore here. And no one is keeping you from bringing up topics you want to see discussed.

@theasdgamer
“Nobody is saying this shit. We are saying that LOTS of jacked dudes have shitty internals, not ALL jacked dudes. Lots of dudes with shitty internals get jacked and don’t fix their shitty internals and wonder why they have problems with women. And these same dudes spend time in the gym instead of going out and being around women and learning to fix their shitty internals. If you can both sarge and go to the gym, great! If you have to choose, sarging is the better option if you want to get laid.”

This.

I think it’s interesting that the guys who seem to 100% grasp what I’m saying no problem are the more self-admittedly spergy posters who just think in terms of logic. But the guys who are hardcore rejecting everything I’m saying as if I’m trying to cut the head off a fucking dragon here, are the guys who are Naturals and/or really emotionally invested in the looks thing and are riled up at the very notion of questioning it or looking at counter-evidence and are focused on the surface level “well who cares!! whatever man just maximize shit!!!” and don’t care about understanding the detailed nuances of the social dynamics going on. What I’ve been saying has been simple basic logic from the start, which is very easy to understand if you just shut off the emotional reaction to what I’m saying and follow the simple logic like a robot.

@Via Vitae
“Agreed. I could not tell for sure tell from the video, but I suspect he might have been packing a deagle if you know what I mean ;)”

lol who knows (except that chick who saw him perform before). For real though: did you read my breakdown of his interactions and is there anything in what I wrote that you disagree with or anything I wrote that doesn’t look like what’s happening in the videos to you? ie – is there anything in my breakdown that I can clarify about his interactions or any questions you have about them, or would you agree that my breakdown is pointing out some pretty observable dynamics going on that you can see when you rewatch it now after having read my breakdown?

@having a bad day
“if for no other reason, the ethics in play in experimental lab work…lol”

lol almost fucked a girl with a boyfriend last night in front of her friends who know she has a boyfriend. What’s Harvard’s E-Mail address, I’m sure we can figure out a study that wouldn’t be in any way controversial that could explain why that girl almost sucked my dick. The Harvard guys will probably sign their wives up to take part in that “suck some other guy’s dick” experiment right? For SCIENCE!!

“my take is that hypergamy is firmware based, bc logically it has to be… that’s the only way ‘attraction is not a choice’ would be able to happen… and WHY tyler can take girls off ‘better looking’/taller/etc guys…regardless of the current social standard of attractiveness… bc otherwise there would be more variability in which subcomms ‘work’… and there aren’t… the same subcomms work across cultures, even across verbal language barriers…”

I agree with this. I think Hypergamy is hardwired shit. We didn’t have a term for Hypergamy in the PUA community (which is part of why I thought “holy shit this guy is brilliant” when I first read Rollo’s Hypergamy stuff that COMPLETELY explained and aligned with everything we were seeing infield), but ultimately most of PUA is just teaching guys how to efficiently trigger a girl’s Hypergamy by convincing her that you’re the highest value man in the room (through various means, including manipulating her social conditioning by basically mini-social-conditioning her in the moment to think your traits are the ones that mean a guy is likely to have those good subcomms the same way Pavlov trained his dog to drool over a bell (but much faster) etc). It just turns out that the looks don’t really factor into that, except on Tinder etc where it’s just a photo and she can’t really tell what your subcomms will be but assumes, from her social conditioning, that good looks mean you’ll have good subcomms.

I personally (and everything I’ve seen infield and in our collection of data) have seen no way to fuck with Hypergamy or counter it or change it and haven’t seen anything infield that goes against it or discredits it and a ton of stuff that supports it, so to me Hypergamy seems like a rock solid concept and saying it’s hardwired is probably a safe bet.

(and no, Rollo, I don’t care if Scray agrees or not, and even if I did Scray is just saying that YES Hypergamy clearly exists but the reasons it exists (ie – is it hardwired) isn’t definitively proven which I don’t think is that controversial since it’s not like he runs around shouting “HYPERGAMY DON’T REAL!!! SHUT DOWN TRM BLOG NO ONE READ ROLLOS STUFF AHHH!!!” He LITERALLY only brought the lack of definitive proof up in a convo thread where a convo about scientific studies was being discussed and that’s the only time he’s ever mentioned it)

“fify…yes… as evidenced by in-field experience…”

lol ya, arousal my bad there’s a lot of nuanced terminology going around in this discussion. We are discussing “pussy-wetting involuntary sexual responses” for the sake of Alpha Fucks like the male strippers Rollo mentioned caused.

“my mental model is that the subcomms/attitude cues are themselves the evolved ‘genetically superior’ traits… that are genetically passable”

I don’t disagree with this in that I don’t have a theory either way and don’t have a big interest in the topic. PUA community doesn’t really know WHY confidence triggers hardwired arousal responses, so that’s open to debate, it could very well be an evolved thing, that sounds as good a theory as any. But the confidence itself is what triggers that response and the association of “looks = he will probably have confidence” is socially conditioned and can be manipulated or changed in time.

And to re-state for the millionth time incase Rollo skims this part: THE SUBCOMMS TRIGGERING AROUSAL RESPONSES IS WHAT’S HARDWIRED (how those specific ones became the ones that do it = who knows, not me, I’m open to any suggestions on it)…….AND THE ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN “LOOKS = MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THOSE SUBCOMMS” IS WHAT’S SOCIALLY CONDITIONED. I AM ****NOT**** SAYING THAT THE SUBCOMMS THAT TRIGGER AROUSAL RESPONSES ARE SOCIALLY CONDITIONED THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

“and so then, logically, our advice to get in-field and put in the work learning game/pua instead of ‘just lift, bro’, is evolutionarily solid advice…”

lol like I say, Tyler’s game wouldn’t look so amazing (and Tyler himself admits he’s not even doing anything crazy wild amazing out there and you can see in his infields they aren’t crazy madness no one else could do) if boys were getting the same inner game training Tyler’s put himself through when they were babies, ie – all positive reinforcement that they have value and deserve 10s and girls aren’t on pedestals and lots of interaction with girls etc etc etc We would probably have a ton of Blaximus level Naturals around who just don’t think about any of this and slay a bunch of poon and make Tyler’s skills look amateur.

But we were all sidetracked by the FI and I think we should be focusing on helping men escape it if the data supports that we don’t need what the FI is pushing.

“bc LEADING her through an ’emotional rollercoaster’ shows her hindbrain that you really ARE adaptive and successful to all environments”

I don’t disagree with this. Part of why just going for the kiss even if you get rejected and learning to no be fazed by that and just calibrate by pulling back, gaming some more, and trying again when she has a higher buying temp is that you’re subtly demonstrating to her “if I cross a line, I’m socially savvy enough to back off and recalibrate and not make a big deal out of it and then try again later at a more appropriate moment in the interaction” which tells her that if she goes home with you and fucks you, you’re probably going to be calibrated and make it a good experience and not take things too fast and not get butthurt if she needs you to slow up etc etc

So you’re technically showing her that you’re smoothly adaptive to what’s happening.

“and ‘social conditioning’ and making inferences therefrom as an adaptive trait”

Social conditioning is fucking GREAT. People who don’t succumb to ANY social conditioning end up in jail because they just don’t give a fuck about rules or laws or anything lol Social conditioning keeps you from grabbing a knife by the blade and driving through a stop sign lol

It’s just that the FI hijacked social conditioning to fuck men up, and it’s worked.

“all in all, it’s a pretty tight match for what puas figured out through trial and error in-field”

Mystery didn’t like, create his method and then go find evidence to support it. He just went out, a fuckload, experimenting a ton, and pieced shit together. Tyler actually edited the original Mystery Method doc for him (giving him value so he could roll with Mystery and learn from him) and Tyler specifically sought out all the top names in the community to sarge with them and try to learn from them. I remember a time where you could reload the forums and see a dozen new field/lay reports a day, it was amazing, so many guys focused on a single purpose: figure out what works, and field test EVERYTHING and compare notes and look for patterns/consistencies then field test THOSE, etc

“my take on it is that girls ping their environment all the time, so they can tell what a ‘high-value’ (conforming) man is… based on enviro cues… (this is different than them reacting to arousal cues…).”

And part of what we do in game is learn to develop strong frames that dominate the girls’ frame when she’s pinging off us and dominate other men’s frames so that when she pings off them she gets the feedback that we’re the higher value guy because those guys are reacting to us as such, so we are basically very quickly mini-social-conditioning her to believe in our value system where we represent the highest value possible.

“yes…but, as long as the guy meets the standard of socialized attractiveness AND doesn’t display any non-masculine (chodey/beta) subcomms… she WILL get wet…”

I would change “she WILL get wet” to “she WILL show non-arousal INTEREST” (aka the free gimme IOIs). It’s the actual demonstrating/experiencing those subcomms that triggers the wetness. Like you might see a scary guy on TV staring at people and feel ya that’s scary, but when that guy walks into your house and stands inches away from you and locks eye-contact with YOU specifically it’s like “woah shit!!!” and you get way more intense feelings triggered.

And the problem with just “don’t display bad subcomms and you’ll get laid” is that to NOT display any bad subcomms you would have to basically be a statue and it’s not real likely she’s going to just see you and hike her skirt up whip out your dick and slide on, there’s going to be SOME kind of interaction or eye-contact or walking or standing with whatever posture (notice that Michaelangelo’s David is standing in a specific good-subcomms pose, which the Doors singer mimicked etc), like you’re going to demonstrate at least a few subcomms good or bad, even if it’s the bare minimum (like when we just use eye-contact and subcomms to get a makeout with the girl without talking etc), and that’s where her brain is going to process them. So the idea of “as long as you don’t show any bad subcomms” becomes irrelevant in the end. Experiencing those subcomms is what triggers her arousal responses.

skimming the rest cause I gotta go shower up to sarge soon lol but it looks like we’re mostly on the same page anyway, there’s a lot of good points/phrasing/further explanations to my points/etc in your post and I’ll read it more in depth later for fun


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Original Link

@Bromeo
“Even saying lots of jacked dudes having bad internals is inaccurate, not sure where this is being perpetuated from”

Having met a shitload of jacked dudes and testing their frames, reading bodybuilding forums, hearing experiences from bodybuilders about the culture in general, etc etc

“The assumption that lots of skinny dudes with bad internals all lift/get jacked but don’t fix their internals is unsound.”

Dunno what to tell ya, befriend a bunch of these guys and hang out around them and their buddies and go compete head to head with these guys for the same girls in field and you’ll find most of them have super weak frames even if they put on a ton of surface level bravado (paper tiger confidence) and/or they have situational confidence at the gym or in discussions about it etc but it doesn’t translate to having a strong frame when actually interacting with girls just like a guy who climbed mount everest might be a super badass 24/7 except when you put a hot girl in front of him most of the time he’ll chode up because he didn’t learn how to specifically hold his frame when interacting with women, which is what infield experience would teach him.

“I would actually argue lifting helps build up internals quicker as it teaches discipline, accomplishment, strong will power, it is not solely about externals.”

None of those are relevant to interacting with hot girls. It ends up being situational confidence where if you go to the gym with that guy he’s super confident and badass, but put him in a bar and shove a hot girl in his face and he goes full chode mode. That’s just how it plays out infield the majority of the time. This shit is all around you lol

“And I see the opposite, who’s right?”

Dunno, ask the Forever Aloners at the MISC for starters lol Then ask all the jacked dudes that take bootcamps from Tyler, etc, etc

Aaaaand with that I’m out for the night. Saturday night, gtfo there all. Try opening girls without talking tonight lol Lock laser eye-contact (relaxed lazy bedroom eyes) and close the space (get your faces close to eachother as you hold eye-contact) and note the reactions. Have fun and bang like a bonobo lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 21st, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Original Link

@Bromeo
“Even saying lots of jacked dudes having bad internals is inaccurate, not sure where this is being perpetuated from”

Having met a shitload of jacked dudes and testing their frames, reading bodybuilding forums, hearing experiences from bodybuilders about the culture in general, etc etc

“The assumption that lots of skinny dudes with bad internals all lift/get jacked but don’t fix their internals is unsound.”

Dunno what to tell ya, befriend a bunch of these guys and hang out around them and their buddies and go compete head to head with these guys for the same girls in field and you’ll find most of them have super weak frames even if they put on a ton of surface level bravado (paper tiger confidence) and/or they have situational confidence at the gym or in discussions about it etc but it doesn’t translate to having a strong frame when actually interacting with girls just like a guy who climbed mount everest might be a super badass 24/7 except when you put a hot girl in front of him most of the time he’ll chode up because he didn’t learn how to specifically hold his frame when interacting with women, which is what infield experience would teach him.

“I would actually argue lifting helps build up internals quicker as it teaches discipline, accomplishment, strong will power, it is not solely about externals.”

None of those are relevant to interacting with hot girls. It ends up being situational confidence where if you go to the gym with that guy he’s super confident and badass, but put him in a bar and shove a hot girl in his face and he goes full chode mode. That’s just how it plays out infield the majority of the time. This shit is all around you lol

“And I see the opposite, who’s right?”

Dunno, ask the Forever Aloners at the MISC for starters lol Then ask all the jacked dudes that take bootcamps from Tyler, etc, etc

Aaaaand with that I’m out for the night. Saturday night, gtfo there all. Try opening girls without talking tonight lol Lock laser eye-contact (relaxed lazy bedroom eyes) and close the space (get your faces close to eachother as you hold eye-contact) and note the reactions. Have fun and bang like a bonobo lol


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 6:00 am
Original Link

@redlight

“Bodybuilding! Okay now why do jacked guys need advice?”

Yup. Everyone will just make excuses based on their view of the world for why success/failure happens. The short or tall guy thinks it’s a height thing, the ugly or perfect face guy thinks it’s a facial aesthetics thing, the poor or rich guy thinks it’s a money thing, etc etc And if the short guy could grow a few feet and still wasn’t getting laid he would say “oh it must be a facial/money” thing depending on what he doesn’t have. It’s an endless cycle because they don’t really undersatnd how attraction works or why Tyler can pick up that Yellow dress girl.

And a lot of those guys probably put on a front that they’re confident, or come across confident when you talk to them at the gym or outside of the gym if you just hang out with them. But put their perfect hot girl in front of them and tell them to approach her and see how many guys can translate that confidence to macking her and how many chode out and drop the ball as their internals fall apart, even if you introduce the girl TO him.

Like I say, I don’t even listen to guys (good-looking or ugly) talking about what pimps they are or how they’re going to go fuck some sluts tonight bla bla during a pregame when I meet new dudes. I just wait till we’re in the field and see how that confidence actually holds up, and throw girls at them, poke at their frames a bit in front of the girls, etc to see what they do and find out who ACTUALLY has a strong frame and who was full of shit. The VASSSST majority of the time the guys are full of shit.

You don’t get better at seducing women by climbing mount everest. You get better at seducing women by seducing women.

That thread you linked on TRP has some solid advice btw. Also a really interesting discussion/explanation for the Tinder thing girls do that I’ve mentioned a few times (and that guys not fucking these <25yo girls probably haven't encountered much which is why I say you gotta be infield to be on top of the shifting culture out there):

@hank holiday
Props for making the most with what you got dude. Ideally down the road you can move to a place where there are more of your type of girl, but you could at least be moving there with some solid foundation to your skillset if you find ways to keep going out where you are now.

"So even when I’m not attracted to a black girl physically, I’m still strangely attracted to the fact that they are DIFFERENT than me. Like black girls with dreds to me are really gross, thinking logically, but because they are so different I actually get turned on by it. Its strange."

Like I say infield teaches you things about yourself and the things you want and the types of girls that you're attracted to and instinctively respond to and enjoy being around. One of my buddies and I have the exact opposite taste in women's personalities, but we both know that from years of going out and learning "when I engage with a girl with this type of personality, I love the interaction and feel massively attracted etc…when I engage with this other type of girl, it's like pulling teeth" lol The type of girl I'm ACTUALLY into that I ACTUALLY respond well to is almost the polar opposite of what I ASSUMED I wanted before I started going out and meeting girls, which was the stereotypical socially conditioned "nice sweet girl you curl up and watch Netflix with" that I saw guys chasing in movies/media.

You won't figure this stuff out sitting in your computer room, you gotta hit the field and learn about yourself. So ya go experiment with black chicks, see what happens. Be aware that you'll probably get a lot more hassle from the dudes in that environment so be careful, but remember: win over the women and you'll generally win over the men. It's hard for a guy to hit you when 3 girls in his social circle are telling him to leave you alone and standing in front of you saying "we LIKE him!!!" lol

But ideally focus on spreading good value to the dudes to win them over and befriending some of the dudes so you have social approval (and backup if someone has a problem with you), instea of trying to AMOG battle them and create negative vibes everywhere, 'cause those girls won't always be around to stop a guy that hates you.

@Via Vitae
"I can’t do what you asked the way you would like"

Sooooo…you can't read my breakdown and look at the video and say "he says the guy makes eye-contact, and I can see him making eye-contact in this video"? Or "he says the girl said she's seen him perform before, so she's not just a random girl in the bar, and I can hear her on the video saying she's seen him perform before, so she's not just a random girl in a bar"? Because you don't like my point of view?

Seems like I'm just asking you to do a simple logical thing. Your summary of the show was that the jacked dude is getting poon from the skies, and my breakdown is showing that there are a ton of little subcomms involved in that poon from the skies, that don't have anything to do with him being jacked.

If you (and anyone else) can see the things in the video that I'm pointing out in my breakdown, and you didn't see those things on your own when you first watched it, then we can logically conclude that you may not fully understand subcomms and your interpretation of what's happening on the show and in pickups in general could be flawed and missing significant details.

Seems like simple logic to me.

@titanic
"It’s entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, throughout all eras and the entire range of SMV has hardwired a bias for male muscularity*, independent of subcoms, into the female firmware"

Thing is, if that were the case then muscles would always cause sexual arousal, like the list of subcomms I made do. But they don't. So it's POSSIBLE, but there's no real evidence to support it infield other than social conditioning and theory.

"I admit that entertaining the idea that looks account for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING really drives home your overall point that a guy needs to be out gaming in target-rich environments at every possible chance."

There's a thread on the TRP about "lifting isn't enough, take up a martial art too". Like, how many different ways are we going to send guys off on tangents that don't do anything to actually help them learn how to trigger sexual arousal in women? How many hours are guys going to waste on wild goose chases before they finally come back to the basics and work on their subcomms and hit the field to develop their internals/subcomms when the REASON they're taking up lifting etc is to "finally solve my problem of not getting laid"? And how many guys are we going to actively push toward ending up like scribblerg where when at some point they lose those externals, their confidence and subcomms are obliterated and they have to start all over with more infield experience to finally develop proper internals?

Why not be efficient and just send them on the most efficient path possible to achieve their goal from day one? OR even make the disclaimer "the more time you spend doing things that aren't "hitting the field to seduce women", the less skilled you will be at "seducing women", and these other things don't actually "seduce women" so decide on your priorities/goals with that information" and like a link to this discussion, instead of this "DON'T QUESTION 20 YEARS OF SCIENCE BUDDY!!!!" stuff and a dozen articles on TRP forums about how vital lifting is so you can look like Chad Thundercock and pussy will fall from the sky.

Men are being misinformed and it will hurt many of them in the longrun. We know this because those men come to PUA bootcamps and our community when they finally hit rock bottom because the advice they followed didn't create the internals/subcomms they were led to believe would be created so they still aren't triggering sexual arousal in women.

@kfg @titanic
If you guys see the majority of the Red Pill forums on reddit or the Bodybuilding forums or the Manosphere recommending "10 minutes a week" of lifting or "one hour a week" to become their Chad Thundercock ideal (that gets laid without having to say a word because he's built like a god), then you guys are reading different forums than I am.

From popular threads in the RP forums:

"As a natural, drug-free lifter, you're best suited to training 3-4 times per week, and most LPs are configured as such"

"If you're weak, you will benefit most from a full body free weights routine performed three times per week, like the infamous Starting Strength or better yet, Phrak's Greyskull variant."

from Starting Strength:

"which means do workout A on Monday, rest on Tuesday, do workout B on Wednesday, rest on Thursday, Do workout A on Friday, and rest on the weekend."

I mean, anyone can just go check this stuff out for themselves on any of these forums. The general recommended time investment is around an hour 3-4 times per week depending on how much like Chad Thundercock you want to look (remember the closer you are to looking like him the more pussy will just fall onto your dick bro, check out the non-sexual-arousal IOIs I got the other day!!).

Now if you've got a method of looking like Chad Thundercock in 10 minutes a week, please post it to the TRP and Bodybuilding forums, I'm sure they would want to hear about that. Then they'll have more time for sarging, I would love it if they all spent only 10 minutes a week on lifting and spend the other 50 minutes of a workout hour approaching hot girls! They'd still ultimately be 10 minutes less experienced than they could be but they'd be healthier while still developing their internals around women, and that's a decent enough tradeoff in my mind.

Of course all of these time recommendations aren't even factoring in all the other shit you gotta blow money on like supplements and protein shakes and all that. And cooking/eating bland meals, under-eating, eating endles cottage cheese and shit to get jacked, etc

If your goal is to look good by society's socially conditioned standards, cool, doing all that stuff will definitely achieve that and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication and is very impressive. When I see a dude who's jacked I'm like man, that guy put in a lot of work, that's really impressive.

…but it's all time/energy/effort/money you could be using to go sarge and rack up like 5,000-10,000 new reference experiences a year that put you closer having rock solid subcomms and doing what Tyler does in his infield or Cajun does in his Keys to the VIP video, etc while just looking like a normal dude. You rack up 50,000 new reference experiences in 5 years of gaming, solidifying your internals, and you'll see why we say non-sexually-aroused free gimme IOIs are irrelevant lol

"which Ya Really has decided to relabel as Interest*)"
"there is an already established lexicon here, which is also conventional, of attraction/arousal and the difference between the two. Interest is something else"

*I'M* not relabelling it. The study Scray and Rollo both posted (that no one has pointed out any real flaws in the testing method used in it that would make the results dismissable) shows that women don't get sexually aroused by men unless they're doing something sexual, and get significantly more aroused when it involves those men acting on a partner. The original assertion was that those free gimme IOI's = sexual arousal (nipple-hardening and assumed pussy-wetting when a male stripper stands next to a girl (disregarding all the subcomms involved in that scenario), as Rollo describes).

So if those free gimme IOI'S aren't sexual arousal then they're just "interest". I don't know what the difference in the lingo for "interest" VS "attraction" VS "sexual arousal" is so if you have a problem with me using "interest" then it would be great if you could define those three terms so I can be using the proper term (sincere request, no sarcasm here, I want my points to be clear and understood and if free gimme "Indicators of Interest" that are, according to that study, not involving sexual arousal, being called "interest" is a problem, I'd like to use the correct terminology)

I think it's fair to say that non-sexually-aroused Indicators of Interest a woman gives could be called her showing "interest in finding out if you ACTUALLY have and can demonstrate to her, the good subcomms that actually trigger involuntary sexual arousal".

@Andy
"Kfg, the problem is that it’s really important that Rollo understand this shit."

lol ya I actually don't care if anyone else here understands it except Rollo, because he's the one who's blog guys are coming to for help and he's the one who's books will last for years and years and be passed down for generations etc so I'd like to see him understanding what we're saying for the sake of accuracy and helping future men develop proper internals/subcomms that trigger sexual arousal.

"Muscles aren’t going to get you laid. Maybe you older guys can’t grasp how prevalent this line of thinking is out there. The Gym is FULL of insecure guys hoping that adding an inch to their biceps is going to magically start dropping panties and make them feel better about themselves."

Yup. And when you teach guys actual pickup or spend time around guys learning it, you can see over and over how if they can think of ANYTHING they can do that isn't "approach hot girls" that might get them results, they'll choose to do that instead, beacuse approaching hot girls is SCARY and working extra hours a week isn't scary, lifting at the gym isn't scary, all this other shit isn't scary…so if they're led to believe that they can circumvent the scary shit, they will focus on all that other shit to their ultimate detriment in the long-run. And even if they achieve all that other shit to build confidence, and figure out how to translate that confidence to the field, if those external attributes are lost or devalued (like a jacked guy who walks into a pool party full of MORE jacked guys), their confidence/internals/subcomms are shaken so they end up with what's essentially just situational confidence.

"And you and Sentient and others are fucking up the conversation yelling “BUT IOIs GUYS!!! YOU MIGHT GET SOME IOIs!!!” It’s NOT going to matter for the guy that has been conditioned to believe that women and men are exactly the same, and women are precious beings that should be treasured and they just want to make gentle sweet love…"

This. That guy needs to rack up field experience interacting with women to crush those beliefs with first-hand experience. He's not going to fully accept these things through just reading blogs. That's WHY newbies still end up getting massive one-itis and lots of them settle down with their first decent seemingly normal/cool HB7 they meet and drop the game for a couple years until that relationship explodes in their face because they didn't actually handle their shit yet and reverted to old mindsets or NAWALT'ed her 'cause they don't have enough field experience to make that relationship work yet, and then they come BACK to the game and head back into the field to keep working on their internals.

Those free gimme IOI's are super, but even BETTER is developing a guy's confidence to where he doesn't need that validation to feel good about himself, he just DOES feel good about himself, and having him understand that those free gimme IOI's are just attention/interest, not sexual arousal.

The only thing more frustrating to these guys than not getting laid, is getting free gimme IOI's that they THOUGHT meant "I'll get laid" and keep ending up massaging their blueballs to PornHub and wondering why that girl they talked to all night isn't returning their texts. 'cause they're seemingly SOOOO CLOSE to the goal (because everyone told them "if a girl gives you a free gimme IOI it means she's soaking her panties brah") and have no idea how far they ACTUALLY are from the goal and have no idea how/why they're dropping the ball and that shit isn't panning out like it was supposed to for a Chad Thundercock.

Then on top of that you layer on the whole "wanting to save face 'cause everyone ASSUMES I must slay it with pussy 'cause THEY saw that girl feel my biceps and assumed I fucked her but have no idea she won't even respond to my texts" and they end up lying about their results, feeling like frauds, feeling incompetent 'cause they can't succeed with these "obvious advantages", being depressed, venting on message forums, etc etc

Elliot Rodgers couldn't understand why his money and Supreme Gentlemanliness wasn't getting him pussy while all the "jerks" were getting laid. George Sodini couldn't understand why getting in shape and having his own house and car and everything that everyone told him was the key to getting laid, wasn't getting laid. Neither guy was taught what actually triggers sexual arousal in women.

And the gyms are currently FULL of dudes following a false narrative, trying to achieve goals that don't have any real relevance to getting laid, chasing free gimme IOI's that don't mean anything, instead of spending that time/energy going out and sarging and learning to actually trigger sexual arousal.

"It’s also not going to matter for the gamer gate nerd that found the TRP subbreddit and sees that bullshit from Gay Lube Oil shitting on PUAs because they’re skinny losers. “All you need to do is hit the gym losers!!”"

Yup. I expect Feminists and Blue Pill guys to turn men away from resources that may help them, but I'd expect better from the Red Pill community. Much like Bromeo's instinctive "Julien's stupid tengame product is just a cash grab waste of time" will proably turn a handful of lurkers away from checking out a product that's literally about developing confidence and good subcomms despite how your externals measure up in society's socially conditioned value system.

"Plus Rollo OBVIOUSLY has some sort of ego investment in this looks muscles shit"

IOI's mean a LOT more and hold a LOT more significance when your goal isn't ACTUALLY putting your P in the girls' V.

Same as how making out with a girl doesn't mean she's going to fuck you. But a guy who isn't trying to get laid will get a makeout and go "THAT WAS AMAZING!!!" But the guy who's had a bunch of makeouts and KNOWS that they can often trigger ASD or make the girl flake etc, has a more realistic view of how much value a makeout actually has and knows that it doesn't really mean that much with regards to actually getting laid and sometimes it's even better to NOT makeout to not break the sexual tension before you're in a sex location etc.

This is why I stress the P in V in <25yo's thing. It's not that guys who aren't doing that can't have good advice, it's just that if that advice contradicts with what the guys putting their dick in <25yo's are reporting en masse from the field…well, reality over theory, if the goal is to help men understand this stuff.

"If the Mano sphere could swallow this pill everyone would be WAY better off. The “Looks don’t Matter” post might the last REALLY important post that Rollo has to write"

It's the thing that keeps Tyler's game looking like "high level game" and what he's doing look like he's defying the laws of the universe. What Tyler's doing is just being normal and not letting social conditioning fuck with his view of his value…if we were ALL focused on learning to do that, Tyler's game would just look average because we would all naturally be doing what he does. That's why he's not an "outlier" we can dismiss…he's a representation of what we could all be by DEFAULT if we weren't socially conditioned to think we don't have the looks/money to be attractive to hot girls.

If what we're saying in the PUA community was fully accepted in the Red Pill/Manosphere, the knowledge base to help men would be pretty much complete. As it is, when I send guys to these communities I have to warn them to ignore the stuff about looks/money, but of course it fits their socially conditioned belief system so how could they ignore it when it sounds SOOOO good?

"It’s interesting to see how emotional everyone is… Jesus."

It's a sensitive issue so I GET why everyone's riled up, but that just shows how deep the FI has dug its tentacles and how much it fights back when its challenged.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 6:00 am
Original Link

@redlight

“Bodybuilding! Okay now why do jacked guys need advice?”

Yup. Everyone will just make excuses based on their view of the world for why success/failure happens. The short or tall guy thinks it’s a height thing, the ugly or perfect face guy thinks it’s a facial aesthetics thing, the poor or rich guy thinks it’s a money thing, etc etc And if the short guy could grow a few feet and still wasn’t getting laid he would say “oh it must be a facial/money” thing depending on what he doesn’t have. It’s an endless cycle because they don’t really undersatnd how attraction works or why Tyler can pick up that Yellow dress girl.

And a lot of those guys probably put on a front that they’re confident, or come across confident when you talk to them at the gym or outside of the gym if you just hang out with them. But put their perfect hot girl in front of them and tell them to approach her and see how many guys can translate that confidence to macking her and how many chode out and drop the ball as their internals fall apart, even if you introduce the girl TO him.

Like I say, I don’t even listen to guys (good-looking or ugly) talking about what pimps they are or how they’re going to go fuck some sluts tonight bla bla during a pregame when I meet new dudes. I just wait till we’re in the field and see how that confidence actually holds up, and throw girls at them, poke at their frames a bit in front of the girls, etc to see what they do and find out who ACTUALLY has a strong frame and who was full of shit. The VASSSST majority of the time the guys are full of shit.

You don’t get better at seducing women by climbing mount everest. You get better at seducing women by seducing women.

That thread you linked on TRP has some solid advice btw. Also a really interesting discussion/explanation for the Tinder thing girls do that I’ve mentioned a few times (and that guys not fucking these <25yo girls probably haven't encountered much which is why I say you gotta be infield to be on top of the shifting culture out there):

@hank holiday
Props for making the most with what you got dude. Ideally down the road you can move to a place where there are more of your type of girl, but you could at least be moving there with some solid foundation to your skillset if you find ways to keep going out where you are now.

"So even when I’m not attracted to a black girl physically, I’m still strangely attracted to the fact that they are DIFFERENT than me. Like black girls with dreds to me are really gross, thinking logically, but because they are so different I actually get turned on by it. Its strange."

Like I say infield teaches you things about yourself and the things you want and the types of girls that you're attracted to and instinctively respond to and enjoy being around. One of my buddies and I have the exact opposite taste in women's personalities, but we both know that from years of going out and learning "when I engage with a girl with this type of personality, I love the interaction and feel massively attracted etc…when I engage with this other type of girl, it's like pulling teeth" lol The type of girl I'm ACTUALLY into that I ACTUALLY respond well to is almost the polar opposite of what I ASSUMED I wanted before I started going out and meeting girls, which was the stereotypical socially conditioned "nice sweet girl you curl up and watch Netflix with" that I saw guys chasing in movies/media.

You won't figure this stuff out sitting in your computer room, you gotta hit the field and learn about yourself. So ya go experiment with black chicks, see what happens. Be aware that you'll probably get a lot more hassle from the dudes in that environment so be careful, but remember: win over the women and you'll generally win over the men. It's hard for a guy to hit you when 3 girls in his social circle are telling him to leave you alone and standing in front of you saying "we LIKE him!!!" lol

But ideally focus on spreading good value to the dudes to win them over and befriending some of the dudes so you have social approval (and backup if someone has a problem with you), instea of trying to AMOG battle them and create negative vibes everywhere, 'cause those girls won't always be around to stop a guy that hates you.

@Via Vitae
"I can’t do what you asked the way you would like"

Sooooo…you can't read my breakdown and look at the video and say "he says the guy makes eye-contact, and I can see him making eye-contact in this video"? Or "he says the girl said she's seen him perform before, so she's not just a random girl in the bar, and I can hear her on the video saying she's seen him perform before, so she's not just a random girl in a bar"? Because you don't like my point of view?

Seems like I'm just asking you to do a simple logical thing. Your summary of the show was that the jacked dude is getting poon from the skies, and my breakdown is showing that there are a ton of little subcomms involved in that poon from the skies, that don't have anything to do with him being jacked.

If you (and anyone else) can see the things in the video that I'm pointing out in my breakdown, and you didn't see those things on your own when you first watched it, then we can logically conclude that you may not fully understand subcomms and your interpretation of what's happening on the show and in pickups in general could be flawed and missing significant details.

Seems like simple logic to me.

@titanic
"It’s entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, throughout all eras and the entire range of SMV has hardwired a bias for male muscularity*, independent of subcoms, into the female firmware"

Thing is, if that were the case then muscles would always cause sexual arousal, like the list of subcomms I made do. But they don't. So it's POSSIBLE, but there's no real evidence to support it infield other than social conditioning and theory.

"I admit that entertaining the idea that looks account for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING really drives home your overall point that a guy needs to be out gaming in target-rich environments at every possible chance."

There's a thread on the TRP about "lifting isn't enough, take up a martial art too". Like, how many different ways are we going to send guys off on tangents that don't do anything to actually help them learn how to trigger sexual arousal in women? How many hours are guys going to waste on wild goose chases before they finally come back to the basics and work on their subcomms and hit the field to develop their internals/subcomms when the REASON they're taking up lifting etc is to "finally solve my problem of not getting laid"? And how many guys are we going to actively push toward ending up like scribblerg where when at some point they lose those externals, their confidence and subcomms are obliterated and they have to start all over with more infield experience to finally develop proper internals?

Why not be efficient and just send them on the most efficient path possible to achieve their goal from day one? OR even make the disclaimer "the more time you spend doing things that aren't "hitting the field to seduce women", the less skilled you will be at "seducing women", and these other things don't actually "seduce women" so decide on your priorities/goals with that information" and like a link to this discussion, instead of this "DON'T QUESTION 20 YEARS OF SCIENCE BUDDY!!!!" stuff and a dozen articles on TRP forums about how vital lifting is so you can look like Chad Thundercock and pussy will fall from the sky.

Men are being misinformed and it will hurt many of them in the longrun. We know this because those men come to PUA bootcamps and our community when they finally hit rock bottom because the advice they followed didn't create the internals/subcomms they were led to believe would be created so they still aren't triggering sexual arousal in women.

@kfg @titanic
If you guys see the majority of the Red Pill forums on reddit or the Bodybuilding forums or the Manosphere recommending "10 minutes a week" of lifting or "one hour a week" to become their Chad Thundercock ideal (that gets laid without having to say a word because he's built like a god), then you guys are reading different forums than I am.

From popular threads in the RP forums:

"As a natural, drug-free lifter, you're best suited to training 3-4 times per week, and most LPs are configured as such"

"If you're weak, you will benefit most from a full body free weights routine performed three times per week, like the infamous Starting Strength or better yet, Phrak's Greyskull variant."

from Starting Strength:

"which means do workout A on Monday, rest on Tuesday, do workout B on Wednesday, rest on Thursday, Do workout A on Friday, and rest on the weekend."

I mean, anyone can just go check this stuff out for themselves on any of these forums. The general recommended time investment is around an hour 3-4 times per week depending on how much like Chad Thundercock you want to look (remember the closer you are to looking like him the more pussy will just fall onto your dick bro, check out the non-sexual-arousal IOIs I got the other day!!).

Now if you've got a method of looking like Chad Thundercock in 10 minutes a week, please post it to the TRP and Bodybuilding forums, I'm sure they would want to hear about that. Then they'll have more time for sarging, I would love it if they all spent only 10 minutes a week on lifting and spend the other 50 minutes of a workout hour approaching hot girls! They'd still ultimately be 10 minutes less experienced than they could be but they'd be healthier while still developing their internals around women, and that's a decent enough tradeoff in my mind.

Of course all of these time recommendations aren't even factoring in all the other shit you gotta blow money on like supplements and protein shakes and all that. And cooking/eating bland meals, under-eating, eating endles cottage cheese and shit to get jacked, etc

If your goal is to look good by society's socially conditioned standards, cool, doing all that stuff will definitely achieve that and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication and is very impressive. When I see a dude who's jacked I'm like man, that guy put in a lot of work, that's really impressive.

…but it's all time/energy/effort/money you could be using to go sarge and rack up like 5,000-10,000 new reference experiences a year that put you closer having rock solid subcomms and doing what Tyler does in his infield or Cajun does in his Keys to the VIP video, etc while just looking like a normal dude. You rack up 50,000 new reference experiences in 5 years of gaming, solidifying your internals, and you'll see why we say non-sexually-aroused free gimme IOIs are irrelevant lol

"which Ya Really has decided to relabel as Interest*)"
"there is an already established lexicon here, which is also conventional, of attraction/arousal and the difference between the two. Interest is something else"

*I'M* not relabelling it. The study Scray and Rollo both posted (that no one has pointed out any real flaws in the testing method used in it that would make the results dismissable) shows that women don't get sexually aroused by men unless they're doing something sexual, and get significantly more aroused when it involves those men acting on a partner. The original assertion was that those free gimme IOI's = sexual arousal (nipple-hardening and assumed pussy-wetting when a male stripper stands next to a girl (disregarding all the subcomms involved in that scenario), as Rollo describes).

So if those free gimme IOI'S aren't sexual arousal then they're just "interest". I don't know what the difference in the lingo for "interest" VS "attraction" VS "sexual arousal" is so if you have a problem with me using "interest" then it would be great if you could define those three terms so I can be using the proper term (sincere request, no sarcasm here, I want my points to be clear and understood and if free gimme "Indicators of Interest" that are, according to that study, not involving sexual arousal, being called "interest" is a problem, I'd like to use the correct terminology)

I think it's fair to say that non-sexually-aroused Indicators of Interest a woman gives could be called her showing "interest in finding out if you ACTUALLY have and can demonstrate to her, the good subcomms that actually trigger involuntary sexual arousal".

@Andy
"Kfg, the problem is that it’s really important that Rollo understand this shit."

lol ya I actually don't care if anyone else here understands it except Rollo, because he's the one who's blog guys are coming to for help and he's the one who's books will last for years and years and be passed down for generations etc so I'd like to see him understanding what we're saying for the sake of accuracy and helping future men develop proper internals/subcomms that trigger sexual arousal.

"Muscles aren’t going to get you laid. Maybe you older guys can’t grasp how prevalent this line of thinking is out there. The Gym is FULL of insecure guys hoping that adding an inch to their biceps is going to magically start dropping panties and make them feel better about themselves."

Yup. And when you teach guys actual pickup or spend time around guys learning it, you can see over and over how if they can think of ANYTHING they can do that isn't "approach hot girls" that might get them results, they'll choose to do that instead, beacuse approaching hot girls is SCARY and working extra hours a week isn't scary, lifting at the gym isn't scary, all this other shit isn't scary…so if they're led to believe that they can circumvent the scary shit, they will focus on all that other shit to their ultimate detriment in the long-run. And even if they achieve all that other shit to build confidence, and figure out how to translate that confidence to the field, if those external attributes are lost or devalued (like a jacked guy who walks into a pool party full of MORE jacked guys), their confidence/internals/subcomms are shaken so they end up with what's essentially just situational confidence.

"And you and Sentient and others are fucking up the conversation yelling “BUT IOIs GUYS!!! YOU MIGHT GET SOME IOIs!!!” It’s NOT going to matter for the guy that has been conditioned to believe that women and men are exactly the same, and women are precious beings that should be treasured and they just want to make gentle sweet love…"

This. That guy needs to rack up field experience interacting with women to crush those beliefs with first-hand experience. He's not going to fully accept these things through just reading blogs. That's WHY newbies still end up getting massive one-itis and lots of them settle down with their first decent seemingly normal/cool HB7 they meet and drop the game for a couple years until that relationship explodes in their face because they didn't actually handle their shit yet and reverted to old mindsets or NAWALT'ed her 'cause they don't have enough field experience to make that relationship work yet, and then they come BACK to the game and head back into the field to keep working on their internals.

Those free gimme IOI's are super, but even BETTER is developing a guy's confidence to where he doesn't need that validation to feel good about himself, he just DOES feel good about himself, and having him understand that those free gimme IOI's are just attention/interest, not sexual arousal.

The only thing more frustrating to these guys than not getting laid, is getting free gimme IOI's that they THOUGHT meant "I'll get laid" and keep ending up massaging their blueballs to PornHub and wondering why that girl they talked to all night isn't returning their texts. 'cause they're seemingly SOOOO CLOSE to the goal (because everyone told them "if a girl gives you a free gimme IOI it means she's soaking her panties brah") and have no idea how far they ACTUALLY are from the goal and have no idea how/why they're dropping the ball and that shit isn't panning out like it was supposed to for a Chad Thundercock.

Then on top of that you layer on the whole "wanting to save face 'cause everyone ASSUMES I must slay it with pussy 'cause THEY saw that girl feel my biceps and assumed I fucked her but have no idea she won't even respond to my texts" and they end up lying about their results, feeling like frauds, feeling incompetent 'cause they can't succeed with these "obvious advantages", being depressed, venting on message forums, etc etc

Elliot Rodgers couldn't understand why his money and Supreme Gentlemanliness wasn't getting him pussy while all the "jerks" were getting laid. George Sodini couldn't understand why getting in shape and having his own house and car and everything that everyone told him was the key to getting laid, wasn't getting laid. Neither guy was taught what actually triggers sexual arousal in women.

And the gyms are currently FULL of dudes following a false narrative, trying to achieve goals that don't have any real relevance to getting laid, chasing free gimme IOI's that don't mean anything, instead of spending that time/energy going out and sarging and learning to actually trigger sexual arousal.

"It’s also not going to matter for the gamer gate nerd that found the TRP subbreddit and sees that bullshit from Gay Lube Oil shitting on PUAs because they’re skinny losers. “All you need to do is hit the gym losers!!”"

Yup. I expect Feminists and Blue Pill guys to turn men away from resources that may help them, but I'd expect better from the Red Pill community. Much like Bromeo's instinctive "Julien's stupid tengame product is just a cash grab waste of time" will proably turn a handful of lurkers away from checking out a product that's literally about developing confidence and good subcomms despite how your externals measure up in society's socially conditioned value system.

"Plus Rollo OBVIOUSLY has some sort of ego investment in this looks muscles shit"

IOI's mean a LOT more and hold a LOT more significance when your goal isn't ACTUALLY putting your P in the girls' V.

Same as how making out with a girl doesn't mean she's going to fuck you. But a guy who isn't trying to get laid will get a makeout and go "THAT WAS AMAZING!!!" But the guy who's had a bunch of makeouts and KNOWS that they can often trigger ASD or make the girl flake etc, has a more realistic view of how much value a makeout actually has and knows that it doesn't really mean that much with regards to actually getting laid and sometimes it's even better to NOT makeout to not break the sexual tension before you're in a sex location etc.

This is why I stress the P in V in <25yo's thing. It's not that guys who aren't doing that can't have good advice, it's just that if that advice contradicts with what the guys putting their dick in <25yo's are reporting en masse from the field…well, reality over theory, if the goal is to help men understand this stuff.

"If the Mano sphere could swallow this pill everyone would be WAY better off. The “Looks don’t Matter” post might the last REALLY important post that Rollo has to write"

It's the thing that keeps Tyler's game looking like "high level game" and what he's doing look like he's defying the laws of the universe. What Tyler's doing is just being normal and not letting social conditioning fuck with his view of his value…if we were ALL focused on learning to do that, Tyler's game would just look average because we would all naturally be doing what he does. That's why he's not an "outlier" we can dismiss…he's a representation of what we could all be by DEFAULT if we weren't socially conditioned to think we don't have the looks/money to be attractive to hot girls.

If what we're saying in the PUA community was fully accepted in the Red Pill/Manosphere, the knowledge base to help men would be pretty much complete. As it is, when I send guys to these communities I have to warn them to ignore the stuff about looks/money, but of course it fits their socially conditioned belief system so how could they ignore it when it sounds SOOOO good?

"It’s interesting to see how emotional everyone is… Jesus."

It's a sensitive issue so I GET why everyone's riled up, but that just shows how deep the FI has dug its tentacles and how much it fights back when its challenged.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:57 am
Original Link

@Culum Struan
Good job pushing specific goals infield. A lot of guys are shit to go sarge with because they have just terrible attitudes/mindsets/beliefs infield and don’t even realize that they’re dragging you down with their attitudes. I would MUCH rather sarge with a guy who has zero game but is upbeat, happy, makes me laugh/smile, reframes everything positively, takes action instead of making excuses, etc…’cause I can teach him the mechanics of game as we go, but guys with negative shitty internals need to do a ton of work themselves to fix that stuff.

Here’s one of the most classic Chad Thundercocks on Keys to the VIP’s bio:

Dude SLAYS it infield in the episode. And if you look at his subcomms in the episode you’ll see him demonstrating TONS of the stuff I listed in my subcomm list, from confidence to good eye-contact to entitlement to touch the girl to leading the interaction to leader of men to neutral/breaking rapport voice tonality to expressiveness etc etc (also in the last interaction he picks up a girl who obliterates another guy who fails her shit-tests when he gets insecure because of them, but no one will look at the guy failing the shit-test or the difference in their subcomms, they’ll just look at “well this guy is jacked”).

But I’m posting this part because look at what this guy’s “pregame” looks like…He’s got a room full of friends cheering him on and he’s pumping his state hardcore, getting physical and expressive and outgoing and unstifled and interacting with women etc etc So is it any wonder that when he hits the field he feels 100% entitled to approach women and lead the interaction towards sex? Why WOULDN’T he walk up to girls feeling like he’s the shit? A lot of Naturals pregame this way and roll out with their social circle to venues they feel comfortable and have social proof/preselection/etc in etc just making massive feedback loops of “I’M AWESOME I DESERVE EVERYTHING I WANT”

Compare that to how you felt last night hanging out with your downer buddy who’s bringing your mood down and the kind of subcomms you’re going to give off in THAT state of mind. So try to do what you can to either minimize hanging out with this guy, or tell him to quit being a whiny complainy negative nancy bitch because it’s bringing you down, or figure out ways to not let him affect your mood.

Like when I’m around negative people like that I’ll often just reframe everything they say. So a guy in the group will complain that “this bar has too many dudes” and I’ll just say “that’s perfect man, ’cause after all these creepy lame guys hit on the girls they’re gonna be way happier to meet US lol” Or if the guy is like “these girls are all ugly” I’ll just say “that’s perfect man, it means there’s no way we aren’t getting laid, we’re like millionaires handing out money to the poor tonight lol” etc etc it’s good reframing practice and you start noticing your OWN negative thoughts more because they remind you of when other people were negative and you get into more of a Tony Robbin’s Positivity Challenge situation in your head. Tyler has that thing where he makes exaggerated Cartman voices about guys whining about negative shit, I’ll do that to buddies sometimes “oh nooooo we have to go talk to girlllls it’s so haaaard waaaahhh” etc to kind of remind them of how dumb their complaining is lol

“She needed to invest more into me and be qualified properly. I shouldn’t have rushed into the qualification and number close immediately after my second DHV story went so well..but I thought I’d do it because it was a high note.”

If you break down your line of thinking, what you’re doing is basically saying “I’m selling myself to this girl (she’s the buyer), and since it seems like I’ve impressed her enough (I’m qualifying myself to her), this is a good time to try to ask her out (I think I’ve sold myself enough and have qualified myself enough to earn her interest)”.

Contrast that with a frame of “I haven’t decided if this girl is interesting to me yet (I’m the buyer), I’m entertaining myself by telling stories about myself and she seems to like them but what does SHE have going for her? (making her qualify to you) If she impresses me when I qualify her, then I might reward her by letting her come out with me (I’m just being awesome demonstrating high value because it’s fun to me to do that, but I expect her to pass some qualifications before I’m interested in her, she has to earn me, not just have a pussy and listen to my stories)”

Which would look something more like telling a DHV story and using that interest to qualify/screen her, like “What about you, have YOU ever done X? No? Tsk tsk, that’s a shame…what about Y? No? You’re losing me here. Oh, you’ve done Z? Really? I wouldn’t have guessed that about you…no, I just mean you just don’t seem like the type. Maybe I misjudged you. What is it about Z that you like? Interesting…you know, when you said you didn’t X or Y, I was about to just wish you a good night and walk away…but the Z stuff is impressive. We should grab coffee sometime.”

See the differences? In the first one, you’re selling yourself and she’s not really earning you or investing in you because you’re by default interested in her. But someone with a bunch of girls on the go etc would screen a girl to see if she’s worth making time for, and her having to qualify herself makes her feel like she’s earned you and it feels GOOD to earn something and increases that thing’s value and how rewarding it feels to earn it:

They’re just burgers, but after the shitshow they went through to get them, the rewarding feeling is glorious compared to if White Castle knocked on their apartment door and just handed them a bunch of burgers lol The process of having to EARN those burgers raises their PERCEIVED value through the roof…they may not even have CARED about the burgers, but BECAUSE they were put in a situation where they had to EARN/INVEST to get them, the burgers suddenly have massive value. So apply that concept to yourself in your interactions, you know?

A big problem guys have with doing that is because they’re caught up in the looks/money rat-race, they can’t congruently demand the girl chase/invest in them. Like they think it’s silly to tell a hot girl that she’s “losing them” and pro-actively reject her because it’s like, why would SHE care? She has way more value than you OBVIOUSLY. So when they try it it comes off weak and incongruent and she really DOESN’T care lol

But when you learn to view yourself as a “ten” regardless of what society thinks, the whole “tsk tsk, you’re losing me here” thing comes off a LOT more congruent and your subcomms align to being a guy who just expects a girl like that to NOT want to risk losing y ou etc, and then the women ping off you for how to feel etc etc

@Bromeo
“if that means supporting them in all their endeavours, be it entrepreneurship (money), getting fit (muscularity), getting hot girls (game).”

If they’re taking up those endeavours ultimately thinking it’s going to help them get hot girls, which is what’s being promoted with the looks/money = sexual arousal flawed Harvard studies, then they’re being misled.

“You are only taking one of these areas and stating its the only thing that matters and I fully disagree with it”

I’m not stating it’s the only thing that matters. But a lot of guys focusing on looks/money are focusing on them because they think it’ll get them laid. So when the discussion about looks/money mattering comes up, like Rollo posting links to flawed Harvard studies, I’d say it’s important that that flawed information be corrected/discussed.

@titanic
“I was being charitable when I said an hour a week but kfg is right … 10 minutes a week is all that’s needed.”

I am totally on board with that, I think it’s awesome. But no one on the TRP forums Red Pill community Manosphere etc is promoting 10 minutes a week because they’re trying to look like Chad Thundercock telling guys they’ll get free gimme IOIs that are basically the same as sex falling from the sky which all comes back to promoting “looks trigger AF sexual arousal in women” which is inaccurate.

I would LOVE if guys would just spend 10 minutes a week on their bodies and then spend the rest of the time interacting with women and developing their internals the way Culum is slowly doing grinding it out out there as he pushes himself to go out and interact with women face to face and enters new scary social situations that help him work on his subcomms.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:57 am
Original Link

@Culum Struan
Good job pushing specific goals infield. A lot of guys are shit to go sarge with because they have just terrible attitudes/mindsets/beliefs infield and don’t even realize that they’re dragging you down with their attitudes. I would MUCH rather sarge with a guy who has zero game but is upbeat, happy, makes me laugh/smile, reframes everything positively, takes action instead of making excuses, etc…’cause I can teach him the mechanics of game as we go, but guys with negative shitty internals need to do a ton of work themselves to fix that stuff.

Here’s one of the most classic Chad Thundercocks on Keys to the VIP’s bio:

Dude SLAYS it infield in the episode. And if you look at his subcomms in the episode you’ll see him demonstrating TONS of the stuff I listed in my subcomm list, from confidence to good eye-contact to entitlement to touch the girl to leading the interaction to leader of men to neutral/breaking rapport voice tonality to expressiveness etc etc (also in the last interaction he picks up a girl who obliterates another guy who fails her shit-tests when he gets insecure because of them, but no one will look at the guy failing the shit-test or the difference in their subcomms, they’ll just look at “well this guy is jacked”).

But I’m posting this part because look at what this guy’s “pregame” looks like…He’s got a room full of friends cheering him on and he’s pumping his state hardcore, getting physical and expressive and outgoing and unstifled and interacting with women etc etc So is it any wonder that when he hits the field he feels 100% entitled to approach women and lead the interaction towards sex? Why WOULDN’T he walk up to girls feeling like he’s the shit? A lot of Naturals pregame this way and roll out with their social circle to venues they feel comfortable and have social proof/preselection/etc in etc just making massive feedback loops of “I’M AWESOME I DESERVE EVERYTHING I WANT”

Compare that to how you felt last night hanging out with your downer buddy who’s bringing your mood down and the kind of subcomms you’re going to give off in THAT state of mind. So try to do what you can to either minimize hanging out with this guy, or tell him to quit being a whiny complainy negative nancy bitch because it’s bringing you down, or figure out ways to not let him affect your mood.

Like when I’m around negative people like that I’ll often just reframe everything they say. So a guy in the group will complain that “this bar has too many dudes” and I’ll just say “that’s perfect man, ’cause after all these creepy lame guys hit on the girls they’re gonna be way happier to meet US lol” Or if the guy is like “these girls are all ugly” I’ll just say “that’s perfect man, it means there’s no way we aren’t getting laid, we’re like millionaires handing out money to the poor tonight lol” etc etc it’s good reframing practice and you start noticing your OWN negative thoughts more because they remind you of when other people were negative and you get into more of a Tony Robbin’s Positivity Challenge situation in your head. Tyler has that thing where he makes exaggerated Cartman voices about guys whining about negative shit, I’ll do that to buddies sometimes “oh nooooo we have to go talk to girlllls it’s so haaaard waaaahhh” etc to kind of remind them of how dumb their complaining is lol

“She needed to invest more into me and be qualified properly. I shouldn’t have rushed into the qualification and number close immediately after my second DHV story went so well..but I thought I’d do it because it was a high note.”

If you break down your line of thinking, what you’re doing is basically saying “I’m selling myself to this girl (she’s the buyer), and since it seems like I’ve impressed her enough (I’m qualifying myself to her), this is a good time to try to ask her out (I think I’ve sold myself enough and have qualified myself enough to earn her interest)”.

Contrast that with a frame of “I haven’t decided if this girl is interesting to me yet (I’m the buyer), I’m entertaining myself by telling stories about myself and she seems to like them but what does SHE have going for her? (making her qualify to you) If she impresses me when I qualify her, then I might reward her by letting her come out with me (I’m just being awesome demonstrating high value because it’s fun to me to do that, but I expect her to pass some qualifications before I’m interested in her, she has to earn me, not just have a pussy and listen to my stories)”

Which would look something more like telling a DHV story and using that interest to qualify/screen her, like “What about you, have YOU ever done X? No? Tsk tsk, that’s a shame…what about Y? No? You’re losing me here. Oh, you’ve done Z? Really? I wouldn’t have guessed that about you…no, I just mean you just don’t seem like the type. Maybe I misjudged you. What is it about Z that you like? Interesting…you know, when you said you didn’t X or Y, I was about to just wish you a good night and walk away…but the Z stuff is impressive. We should grab coffee sometime.”

See the differences? In the first one, you’re selling yourself and she’s not really earning you or investing in you because you’re by default interested in her. But someone with a bunch of girls on the go etc would screen a girl to see if she’s worth making time for, and her having to qualify herself makes her feel like she’s earned you and it feels GOOD to earn something and increases that thing’s value and how rewarding it feels to earn it:

They’re just burgers, but after the shitshow they went through to get them, the rewarding feeling is glorious compared to if White Castle knocked on their apartment door and just handed them a bunch of burgers lol The process of having to EARN those burgers raises their PERCEIVED value through the roof…they may not even have CARED about the burgers, but BECAUSE they were put in a situation where they had to EARN/INVEST to get them, the burgers suddenly have massive value. So apply that concept to yourself in your interactions, you know?

A big problem guys have with doing that is because they’re caught up in the looks/money rat-race, they can’t congruently demand the girl chase/invest in them. Like they think it’s silly to tell a hot girl that she’s “losing them” and pro-actively reject her because it’s like, why would SHE care? She has way more value than you OBVIOUSLY. So when they try it it comes off weak and incongruent and she really DOESN’T care lol

But when you learn to view yourself as a “ten” regardless of what society thinks, the whole “tsk tsk, you’re losing me here” thing comes off a LOT more congruent and your subcomms align to being a guy who just expects a girl like that to NOT want to risk losing y ou etc, and then the women ping off you for how to feel etc etc

@Bromeo
“if that means supporting them in all their endeavours, be it entrepreneurship (money), getting fit (muscularity), getting hot girls (game).”

If they’re taking up those endeavours ultimately thinking it’s going to help them get hot girls, which is what’s being promoted with the looks/money = sexual arousal flawed Harvard studies, then they’re being misled.

“You are only taking one of these areas and stating its the only thing that matters and I fully disagree with it”

I’m not stating it’s the only thing that matters. But a lot of guys focusing on looks/money are focusing on them because they think it’ll get them laid. So when the discussion about looks/money mattering comes up, like Rollo posting links to flawed Harvard studies, I’d say it’s important that that flawed information be corrected/discussed.

@titanic
“I was being charitable when I said an hour a week but kfg is right … 10 minutes a week is all that’s needed.”

I am totally on board with that, I think it’s awesome. But no one on the TRP forums Red Pill community Manosphere etc is promoting 10 minutes a week because they’re trying to look like Chad Thundercock telling guys they’ll get free gimme IOIs that are basically the same as sex falling from the sky which all comes back to promoting “looks trigger AF sexual arousal in women” which is inaccurate.

I would LOVE if guys would just spend 10 minutes a week on their bodies and then spend the rest of the time interacting with women and developing their internals the way Culum is slowly doing grinding it out out there as he pushes himself to go out and interact with women face to face and enters new scary social situations that help him work on his subcomms.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 10:52 am
Original Link

@scray
“The same free IOIs I get from my appearance can come from just catching a girls eye and smirking. No real difference. Most guys just don’t have the balls to do shit like that. ”

This. ’cause most guys internals/subcomms are fucked from years of social conditioning and comparing themselves to rich jacked Chad Thundercock because of messages portrayed that free gimme IOIs are a prize to chase and that muscles trigger sexual arousal. So most guys won’t even look a really hot girl in the eyes when they look at them.

“There is no chad t 1hr a week method lmfao.”

lol ya that’s what I mean. Like, when I see the front page of TRP say “spend 10 min a week lifting” I’ll go oh, cool, my job is done. But that’s not what’s promoted. And if all the guys were like “I’m just here to lift for MYSELF for real…I’m a virgin who’s dying to get laid, but I’m just lifting for MYSELF, TOTAAAAAALLY not beacuse I think it’ll get me laid, I’m rejecting all your posts saying that it’ll totally get me laid and just lifting for myself yup!”, cool, but realistically that’s not the case or the culture that’s been created and stuff like “muscles trigger involuntary arousal bla bla” which has no real basis in anything except social conditioning, is pushing guys into chasing alternate routes that just bring them back to having to develop subcomms/internals around women except years later than if they started out focusing on that. But it’s taboo to say “the reason Tyler has high level game is because he was approaching women instead of lifting” because it goes against muscles trigger sexual attraction.

@Ajax Parallax
“these girls along the shoreline were more than 50 meters away at first interaction – couldn’t see our pupils, expressions, hear our voices, estimate our levels of confidence.”

If they can see your buddy’s body they can see your bodies. Read a book on body language, not to mention the arrangement of your group VS him etc. Tons of little subcomms that you gloss over the same way Via Vitae summarized that Keys episode as a jacked guy getting girls offering sex, and that you don’t report, and that we can’t see for ourselves because there’s no infield video of what exactly happened. You said yourself that he had good subcomms regardless of how he looked. You don’t have to be up close to start picking up subcomms.

“As you said yourself, most likely a free IoI”

Sure, if he’s demonstrating good subcomms to begin with, and he fits the socially conditioned view of what is “likely to have good subcomms” then ya, he’s gonna get free gimme IOIs. I’ve agreed with that from the start.

“but your example of a flamboyantly gay muscular Brittany Spears singing guy is extreme and flawed”

If the point I’m debunking is “muscles trigger hardwired involuntary sexual arousal responses in women” and I show you a muscular guy who very much doesn’t trigger hardwired involuntary sexual arousal responses in women, then that’s not extreme or flawed. That is simply solid counter-evidence that debunks that notion and brings up food for thought.

“A better example would be George Michael videos from the 80s and 90s, with his scruff face and tight jeans making all the girls cream with his good looks paired with good subcomms. O right, shoot, never mind. He was gay too.”

Like I say, good subcomms trigger sexual arousal. Do George Michael’s subcomms look like Richard Simmons’ extremely flamboyantly gay subcomms to you?

“What would happen if we stood Owen Cook in his prime with his wicked subcomms right beside a non-famous (removing his high status) Brad Pitt in his prime with identically wickedly good subcomms?”

1) two guys don’t have identical subcomms, so it’s a silly comparison

2) Tyler is regularly gaming in high-end venues with tons of guys with Brad Pitt level looks

3) it’ll come down to whichever guy comes off 0.00001% cooler

“Which one would draw more interest walking through the door”

Interest does not equal sexual arousal, which is my point. I’ve never said looks won’t get you free gimme IOIs.

“And if Owen’s subcomms were, as you say, .00001 percent better than Brad’s, is that enough to draw all of their attention his way?”

The higher the % better the more attention he’ll get. No one is paying attention to the good-looking guys around Tyler when Tyler is having 3-way makeouts with hot girls in front of him.

“And would the girls consider Brad Pitt, all subcomms being equal, .000001 percent more attractive to them than Owen? Or … perhaps … more?”

All subcomms aren’t equal in real life interactions. In a photo comparison they’ll pick Brad Pitt because he externally fits the socially conditioned stereotype of a guy who’s likely to have good subcomms. But in real life it comes down to who’s demonstrating the best subcomms in that moment.

“Look man, I can also say you’re biased and we can’t trust anything you write because you don’t show your own crazy successful pickup videos with hotties or show us the quality of all the plates you’re spinning”

I don’t have to, Tyler and all the other guys posting hidden pickup infield online provide enough. This line of thinking is just a mild attempt to character assassinate and discredit.

“like hosting $5k and $10k boot camps with dudes that probably could best use that money to put in a Roth IRA at 25 YO and build it to a million dollars by the time they retire.”

Retire to an empty house. I don’t agree with the pricing on bootcamps, and I think there’s enough free information (and I recommend pirating overpriced shit) to learn everything you need to know. But when the pickup industry started Tyler was teaching bootcamps for the cost of “can I crash on your couch?” It’s an industry now, but it didn’t start out that way and the price of information doesn’t change the quality of information. There are pickup products I don’t recommend or would warn guys away from that are full of shit, and there are ones that are full of useful content, just like any industry that teaches a skillset.

“still using these same terms like “targets”, “sarge” and “chodes” and inserting “like” into every post the same way the spergy Owen and others speak in their videos”

There’s nothing wrong with having a consistent terminology/lexicon, and people involved in the same communities will tend to gravitate toward using similar lingo as eachother, and using military lingo like “targets” helps guys dehumanize things a bit to help with the fear…it’s scarier to approach “your dream girl” than it is to approach “your target”, etc They’re tools to help men get past their fears and hurdles to learn the skillset.

“Admittedly, I have never seen anyone IRL use that crutch transition word outside of 12 YO girls in the San Fernando Valley and especially not in written form. Call it an autist nerd meme. Whatever.”

Cool story bro. So when will you post your hours and hours of free content that explains deep concepts that help men fix their lives without any autist nerd lingo so that men can have a better resource than Tyler’s? Oh, you’re not going to do that? You just want to hate on him and convince other men, who need solutions to the problems in their life, to not check out resources that might help them. That sounds productive and helpful, I’m sure when those guys go the Elliot Rodgers route they’ll give you a shout-out in their manifesto.

“Aesthetic beauty, whether it was installed on the front end by a higher deity or whether it evolved from the primordial morass, exists in the human world.”

No one has said that there’s no such thing as “good looks”, I have no idea why you’re arguing against that. What we’re saying is that it’s not the looks themselves that trigger sexual arousal (which Scray and Rollo’s sexual study seems to back up), it’s the display of good subcomms that trigger sexual arousal, and the looks are socially conditioned to be believed to be the most likely to have those good subcomms (which back in the caveman days was probably true).

“telling him it doesn’t matter what he sculpts because he can just carve out a blobby short fat depiction of David with good blob subcomms”

If in those days being a blobby short fat dude was advantageous and social conditoning pushed the image of blobby short fat dudes having good blob subcomms then yes, that would be true. Just like the flat-head people might erect a statue of a guy with a flat head and marvel at it.

“Now is all of this social conditioning brainwashing? Maybe.”

The field evidence supports this heavily, which is my whole point.

“Has this social conditioning over the last 5,000 years slowly transitioned via epigenetics into evolved firmware connected to the DNA hard-wiring of the double helix from generation to generation? That debate continues to rage.”

Dunno, I personally don’t care about why confidence, entitlement, preselection, leader of men, etc triggers hardwired involuntary arousal when women experience a man with it. Go nuts discussing it, I’m sure it’s an interesting topic.

The study you posted just confirms that social conditioning convinces people that good looks = higher intelligence. That just proves what I’m saying, that people are socially conditioned to believe good looks represent a high likelihood of having other attributes.

“Finally, I view hyper focused pickup guys telling other guys not to bother improving their physical genetics the same way I view hyper focused Golds Gym guys telling other guys to forget working on approaches”

Is that guy’s goal to get jacked or to fix being lonely with no women in his life (or not the women he WANTS)? If his goal is to be jacked then ya, go hit the gym, fuck sarging. But most guys who end up in these communities are there because they aren’t getting the results with women that they want and they’re typing in “how do I get a girlfriend?” “how do I fix my dead bedroom?” “how do I get the women I WANT?” etc

If your goal is NOT to improve your sex life or get more women in your life etc, then ya, ignore what I’m saying.

“Look, guys get your flabby asses in shape; get flexible so girls you dance with or move around in the bedroom have their minds blown by your stamina and flexible hip action.”

And what if they don’t know how to get women to dance with them or into their bedroom from the dance floor?

“I can’t tell you the confidence boost you feel when the girl you’re with in coitus reaches up, holding your arms and groans with pleasure: “You’re sooo strong…””

Ya it’s awesome. Know how I know? Because girls do the same shit to me. They’ll literally feel up my blobby non-muscle and groan with pleasure about how strong I am, because they’re attracted to me and just hamster warp whatever my features are into what’s sexy.

“I don’t know how this conversation spun into claiming Rollo and others were talking about isolating oneself in the gym and building muscles in a vacuum”

I’ve never said that you were. I’ve said from the start that “muscles trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses” is not accurate and that building muscles isn’t guaranteed to give you the subcomms that ACTUALLY trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses and that logically time spent in the gym instead of sarging is time less toward honing the thing that will trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses.

Very simple and what I’ve been saying since day one.

“I think many of us, including Rollo, take a holistic approach to being a better man and a better human being”

Then say “hit the gym, but understand that it’s not actually going to trigger sexual arousal responses in women…the free gimme IOI’s you get are just interest in finding out if you’ll display the actual good subcomms that trigger sexual arousal responses in women, and that developing those good subcomms comes from sarging infield so make an educated decision on where you want to focus your time/energy because if you want to focus more on what’s actually triggering sexual arousal responses in women you should hit the field” and I’m a happy guy. But nope, we get bullshit Harvard studies titled “We all KNOW muscles are sexy, OBVIOUSLY DUHHHH, so let’s have girls look at these Tinder profiles to figure out just HOW sexy they ARE!!!” and more guys go down a path chasing a reward that isn’t guaranteed to be there, and then end up coming to us for fixing because they weren’t properly informed.

“feeding your brain on literature beyond the *must get pussy* topic”

I’ve never said slaying pussy is the only thing a man should be concerned about in life. But IF he DOES want to get pussy, he should focus on the thing that most efficiently will lead to him achieving that goal.

“I’m not sure who has such piss poor time management skills that they can’t mix in an occasional workout after work, say around 4 or 5, before going out to socialize”

Ask the Forever Aloners at MISC or the guys who post “didn’t go out last night, was too tired after the gym, will go out tomorrow for sure though” etc My point is simply that if, around 4 or 5, they did an hour of approaching women, they would be 1-20 sets closer to their goal if their goal is getting women.

“Or maybe this cuts negatively into the time best used to sarge those hot blue hairs at Old Country Buffet”

That’s my point. There are plenty of women and people in general to socially engage when you leave work.

@Bromeo
“I am pretty sure the majority of men out there do not have the same mind set of Tyler or Julien to go sarge every night. Most men would rather have a good balance of things including financials and health.”

Then that’s all the more reason the ones that are dividing their time up and spending less time in the field should be educated with a better understanding of what exactly triggers involuntary sexual arousal in women so that their time infield is spent more efficiently.

“Then you got guys like Yareally and Scary come on here and say forget money, forget lifting, just go sarge every night…”

If your goal is to fix your sex life and develop the ability to do what Tyler does in his videos, then yes, you should hyperfocus for a few years. Ideally guys do that in their early 20s when they have the abundant social opportunities college/university/partying/etc provide (VS in their 30s when their friends are all settled down and don’t want to go out).

“And on top of that you tell Rollo who has been studying/writing on RP and making men’s lives better to swallow another “pill” and that he’s still socially conditioned by the FI? Absolutely ridiculous.”

Everyone is a student and can be wrong. The field evidence suggests that the message being promoted when those Harvard studies are posted and anecdotes about male strippers muscles triggering involuntary sexual arousal instead of their subcomm displays (which goes against the results in that study Scray/Rollo posted), is inaccurate information.

@having a bad day
“is that if the guy is ‘attractive’ , then social conditioning will supply her with imputed ‘masculine subcomms’ being there until they are countered by non-masculine ones”

The nuance is that she needs to see the guy DEMONSTRATE those good subcomms and/or EXPERIENCE them herself from him, to trigger the hardwired sexual arousal response. Otherwise she would just be gushing pussy juice everywhere when she opens up Tinder lol That’s why we call it DEMONSTRATE Higher Value (DHV). It’s the DEMONSTRATION that triggers it. Her believing you can pass a shit-test doesn’t trigger sexual arousal, her shit-testing you and you passing it triggers sexual arousal.

Small nuance, but important. That’s why the free gimme IOI’s aren’t really sexual arousal, unless the guy, in response to them, demonstrates good subcomms. She may know/believe you are preselected, but if just knowing/believing that meant she was sexually aroused she would be wet 24/7 once you enter her life. It’s when she actually experiences the feelings that you demonstrating preselection subcomms happen, that she’s triggered.

“bc even the fat 4 is going to be getting presented with a base level of sufficient ‘masculine subcomms’ when she interacts with the guy”

Plus consider that that guy isn’t going to be attracted to the 4, so he’s going to have the subcomms of “of COURSE I can get THIS girl, I’m way better than her, I’m way above her, I’m the prize, of COURSE I’ll tease her when she says something dumb, of COURSE I’ll blow through her stupid shit-tests, she’s a 4” etc etc and all the attractive subcomms THAT comes with. VS that guy’s personal 10 he has up on a pedestal where his subcomms will be very different because he doesn’t view her the same way he viewed that 4.

“although, i DO actually care if other men here understand this stuff (and i think you do to, but i agree with your overall point on getting Rollo to understand)”

lol ya I was exaggerating there. I want ALL guys to understand this everywhere, really. EVERYONE escaping the FI for real, not just learning how to be the best at achieving the FI’s misleading goals.

“just hook up the girls and show them videos of guys holding ‘provisioning’ items”

I say hook them up and put them in a nightclub then send in the RSD crew and a bunch of Forever Aloners from the MISC lol

“bc i really have been stealing a lot of time from my burden of performance responsibilities to do this stuff… ”

lol I am spending way too much time here right now for this discussion but I have to defend my point against like a dozen people all posting at the same time and this is an important subject (for reasons I’ve already mentioned multiple times), but when this conversation topic is done I’ll probably take some time away to handle other shit.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 10:52 am
Original Link

@scray
“The same free IOIs I get from my appearance can come from just catching a girls eye and smirking. No real difference. Most guys just don’t have the balls to do shit like that. ”

This. ’cause most guys internals/subcomms are fucked from years of social conditioning and comparing themselves to rich jacked Chad Thundercock because of messages portrayed that free gimme IOIs are a prize to chase and that muscles trigger sexual arousal. So most guys won’t even look a really hot girl in the eyes when they look at them.

“There is no chad t 1hr a week method lmfao.”

lol ya that’s what I mean. Like, when I see the front page of TRP say “spend 10 min a week lifting” I’ll go oh, cool, my job is done. But that’s not what’s promoted. And if all the guys were like “I’m just here to lift for MYSELF for real…I’m a virgin who’s dying to get laid, but I’m just lifting for MYSELF, TOTAAAAAALLY not beacuse I think it’ll get me laid, I’m rejecting all your posts saying that it’ll totally get me laid and just lifting for myself yup!”, cool, but realistically that’s not the case or the culture that’s been created and stuff like “muscles trigger involuntary arousal bla bla” which has no real basis in anything except social conditioning, is pushing guys into chasing alternate routes that just bring them back to having to develop subcomms/internals around women except years later than if they started out focusing on that. But it’s taboo to say “the reason Tyler has high level game is because he was approaching women instead of lifting” because it goes against muscles trigger sexual attraction.

@Ajax Parallax
“these girls along the shoreline were more than 50 meters away at first interaction – couldn’t see our pupils, expressions, hear our voices, estimate our levels of confidence.”

If they can see your buddy’s body they can see your bodies. Read a book on body language, not to mention the arrangement of your group VS him etc. Tons of little subcomms that you gloss over the same way Via Vitae summarized that Keys episode as a jacked guy getting girls offering sex, and that you don’t report, and that we can’t see for ourselves because there’s no infield video of what exactly happened. You said yourself that he had good subcomms regardless of how he looked. You don’t have to be up close to start picking up subcomms.

“As you said yourself, most likely a free IoI”

Sure, if he’s demonstrating good subcomms to begin with, and he fits the socially conditioned view of what is “likely to have good subcomms” then ya, he’s gonna get free gimme IOIs. I’ve agreed with that from the start.

“but your example of a flamboyantly gay muscular Brittany Spears singing guy is extreme and flawed”

If the point I’m debunking is “muscles trigger hardwired involuntary sexual arousal responses in women” and I show you a muscular guy who very much doesn’t trigger hardwired involuntary sexual arousal responses in women, then that’s not extreme or flawed. That is simply solid counter-evidence that debunks that notion and brings up food for thought.

“A better example would be George Michael videos from the 80s and 90s, with his scruff face and tight jeans making all the girls cream with his good looks paired with good subcomms. O right, shoot, never mind. He was gay too.”

Like I say, good subcomms trigger sexual arousal. Do George Michael’s subcomms look like Richard Simmons’ extremely flamboyantly gay subcomms to you?

“What would happen if we stood Owen Cook in his prime with his wicked subcomms right beside a non-famous (removing his high status) Brad Pitt in his prime with identically wickedly good subcomms?”

1) two guys don’t have identical subcomms, so it’s a silly comparison

2) Tyler is regularly gaming in high-end venues with tons of guys with Brad Pitt level looks

3) it’ll come down to whichever guy comes off 0.00001% cooler

“Which one would draw more interest walking through the door”

Interest does not equal sexual arousal, which is my point. I’ve never said looks won’t get you free gimme IOIs.

“And if Owen’s subcomms were, as you say, .00001 percent better than Brad’s, is that enough to draw all of their attention his way?”

The higher the % better the more attention he’ll get. No one is paying attention to the good-looking guys around Tyler when Tyler is having 3-way makeouts with hot girls in front of him.

“And would the girls consider Brad Pitt, all subcomms being equal, .000001 percent more attractive to them than Owen? Or … perhaps … more?”

All subcomms aren’t equal in real life interactions. In a photo comparison they’ll pick Brad Pitt because he externally fits the socially conditioned stereotype of a guy who’s likely to have good subcomms. But in real life it comes down to who’s demonstrating the best subcomms in that moment.

“Look man, I can also say you’re biased and we can’t trust anything you write because you don’t show your own crazy successful pickup videos with hotties or show us the quality of all the plates you’re spinning”

I don’t have to, Tyler and all the other guys posting hidden pickup infield online provide enough. This line of thinking is just a mild attempt to character assassinate and discredit.

“like hosting $5k and $10k boot camps with dudes that probably could best use that money to put in a Roth IRA at 25 YO and build it to a million dollars by the time they retire.”

Retire to an empty house. I don’t agree with the pricing on bootcamps, and I think there’s enough free information (and I recommend pirating overpriced shit) to learn everything you need to know. But when the pickup industry started Tyler was teaching bootcamps for the cost of “can I crash on your couch?” It’s an industry now, but it didn’t start out that way and the price of information doesn’t change the quality of information. There are pickup products I don’t recommend or would warn guys away from that are full of shit, and there are ones that are full of useful content, just like any industry that teaches a skillset.

“still using these same terms like “targets”, “sarge” and “chodes” and inserting “like” into every post the same way the spergy Owen and others speak in their videos”

There’s nothing wrong with having a consistent terminology/lexicon, and people involved in the same communities will tend to gravitate toward using similar lingo as eachother, and using military lingo like “targets” helps guys dehumanize things a bit to help with the fear…it’s scarier to approach “your dream girl” than it is to approach “your target”, etc They’re tools to help men get past their fears and hurdles to learn the skillset.

“Admittedly, I have never seen anyone IRL use that crutch transition word outside of 12 YO girls in the San Fernando Valley and especially not in written form. Call it an autist nerd meme. Whatever.”

Cool story bro. So when will you post your hours and hours of free content that explains deep concepts that help men fix their lives without any autist nerd lingo so that men can have a better resource than Tyler’s? Oh, you’re not going to do that? You just want to hate on him and convince other men, who need solutions to the problems in their life, to not check out resources that might help them. That sounds productive and helpful, I’m sure when those guys go the Elliot Rodgers route they’ll give you a shout-out in their manifesto.

“Aesthetic beauty, whether it was installed on the front end by a higher deity or whether it evolved from the primordial morass, exists in the human world.”

No one has said that there’s no such thing as “good looks”, I have no idea why you’re arguing against that. What we’re saying is that it’s not the looks themselves that trigger sexual arousal (which Scray and Rollo’s sexual study seems to back up), it’s the display of good subcomms that trigger sexual arousal, and the looks are socially conditioned to be believed to be the most likely to have those good subcomms (which back in the caveman days was probably true).

“telling him it doesn’t matter what he sculpts because he can just carve out a blobby short fat depiction of David with good blob subcomms”

If in those days being a blobby short fat dude was advantageous and social conditoning pushed the image of blobby short fat dudes having good blob subcomms then yes, that would be true. Just like the flat-head people might erect a statue of a guy with a flat head and marvel at it.

“Now is all of this social conditioning brainwashing? Maybe.”

The field evidence supports this heavily, which is my whole point.

“Has this social conditioning over the last 5,000 years slowly transitioned via epigenetics into evolved firmware connected to the DNA hard-wiring of the double helix from generation to generation? That debate continues to rage.”

Dunno, I personally don’t care about why confidence, entitlement, preselection, leader of men, etc triggers hardwired involuntary arousal when women experience a man with it. Go nuts discussing it, I’m sure it’s an interesting topic.

The study you posted just confirms that social conditioning convinces people that good looks = higher intelligence. That just proves what I’m saying, that people are socially conditioned to believe good looks represent a high likelihood of having other attributes.

“Finally, I view hyper focused pickup guys telling other guys not to bother improving their physical genetics the same way I view hyper focused Golds Gym guys telling other guys to forget working on approaches”

Is that guy’s goal to get jacked or to fix being lonely with no women in his life (or not the women he WANTS)? If his goal is to be jacked then ya, go hit the gym, fuck sarging. But most guys who end up in these communities are there because they aren’t getting the results with women that they want and they’re typing in “how do I get a girlfriend?” “how do I fix my dead bedroom?” “how do I get the women I WANT?” etc

If your goal is NOT to improve your sex life or get more women in your life etc, then ya, ignore what I’m saying.

“Look, guys get your flabby asses in shape; get flexible so girls you dance with or move around in the bedroom have their minds blown by your stamina and flexible hip action.”

And what if they don’t know how to get women to dance with them or into their bedroom from the dance floor?

“I can’t tell you the confidence boost you feel when the girl you’re with in coitus reaches up, holding your arms and groans with pleasure: “You’re sooo strong…””

Ya it’s awesome. Know how I know? Because girls do the same shit to me. They’ll literally feel up my blobby non-muscle and groan with pleasure about how strong I am, because they’re attracted to me and just hamster warp whatever my features are into what’s sexy.

“I don’t know how this conversation spun into claiming Rollo and others were talking about isolating oneself in the gym and building muscles in a vacuum”

I’ve never said that you were. I’ve said from the start that “muscles trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses” is not accurate and that building muscles isn’t guaranteed to give you the subcomms that ACTUALLY trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses and that logically time spent in the gym instead of sarging is time less toward honing the thing that will trigger involuntary sexual arousal responses.

Very simple and what I’ve been saying since day one.

“I think many of us, including Rollo, take a holistic approach to being a better man and a better human being”

Then say “hit the gym, but understand that it’s not actually going to trigger sexual arousal responses in women…the free gimme IOI’s you get are just interest in finding out if you’ll display the actual good subcomms that trigger sexual arousal responses in women, and that developing those good subcomms comes from sarging infield so make an educated decision on where you want to focus your time/energy because if you want to focus more on what’s actually triggering sexual arousal responses in women you should hit the field” and I’m a happy guy. But nope, we get bullshit Harvard studies titled “We all KNOW muscles are sexy, OBVIOUSLY DUHHHH, so let’s have girls look at these Tinder profiles to figure out just HOW sexy they ARE!!!” and more guys go down a path chasing a reward that isn’t guaranteed to be there, and then end up coming to us for fixing because they weren’t properly informed.

“feeding your brain on literature beyond the *must get pussy* topic”

I’ve never said slaying pussy is the only thing a man should be concerned about in life. But IF he DOES want to get pussy, he should focus on the thing that most efficiently will lead to him achieving that goal.

“I’m not sure who has such piss poor time management skills that they can’t mix in an occasional workout after work, say around 4 or 5, before going out to socialize”

Ask the Forever Aloners at MISC or the guys who post “didn’t go out last night, was too tired after the gym, will go out tomorrow for sure though” etc My point is simply that if, around 4 or 5, they did an hour of approaching women, they would be 1-20 sets closer to their goal if their goal is getting women.

“Or maybe this cuts negatively into the time best used to sarge those hot blue hairs at Old Country Buffet”

That’s my point. There are plenty of women and people in general to socially engage when you leave work.

@Bromeo
“I am pretty sure the majority of men out there do not have the same mind set of Tyler or Julien to go sarge every night. Most men would rather have a good balance of things including financials and health.”

Then that’s all the more reason the ones that are dividing their time up and spending less time in the field should be educated with a better understanding of what exactly triggers involuntary sexual arousal in women so that their time infield is spent more efficiently.

“Then you got guys like Yareally and Scary come on here and say forget money, forget lifting, just go sarge every night…”

If your goal is to fix your sex life and develop the ability to do what Tyler does in his videos, then yes, you should hyperfocus for a few years. Ideally guys do that in their early 20s when they have the abundant social opportunities college/university/partying/etc provide (VS in their 30s when their friends are all settled down and don’t want to go out).

“And on top of that you tell Rollo who has been studying/writing on RP and making men’s lives better to swallow another “pill” and that he’s still socially conditioned by the FI? Absolutely ridiculous.”

Everyone is a student and can be wrong. The field evidence suggests that the message being promoted when those Harvard studies are posted and anecdotes about male strippers muscles triggering involuntary sexual arousal instead of their subcomm displays (which goes against the results in that study Scray/Rollo posted), is inaccurate information.

@having a bad day
“is that if the guy is ‘attractive’ , then social conditioning will supply her with imputed ‘masculine subcomms’ being there until they are countered by non-masculine ones”

The nuance is that she needs to see the guy DEMONSTRATE those good subcomms and/or EXPERIENCE them herself from him, to trigger the hardwired sexual arousal response. Otherwise she would just be gushing pussy juice everywhere when she opens up Tinder lol That’s why we call it DEMONSTRATE Higher Value (DHV). It’s the DEMONSTRATION that triggers it. Her believing you can pass a shit-test doesn’t trigger sexual arousal, her shit-testing you and you passing it triggers sexual arousal.

Small nuance, but important. That’s why the free gimme IOI’s aren’t really sexual arousal, unless the guy, in response to them, demonstrates good subcomms. She may know/believe you are preselected, but if just knowing/believing that meant she was sexually aroused she would be wet 24/7 once you enter her life. It’s when she actually experiences the feelings that you demonstrating preselection subcomms happen, that she’s triggered.

“bc even the fat 4 is going to be getting presented with a base level of sufficient ‘masculine subcomms’ when she interacts with the guy”

Plus consider that that guy isn’t going to be attracted to the 4, so he’s going to have the subcomms of “of COURSE I can get THIS girl, I’m way better than her, I’m way above her, I’m the prize, of COURSE I’ll tease her when she says something dumb, of COURSE I’ll blow through her stupid shit-tests, she’s a 4” etc etc and all the attractive subcomms THAT comes with. VS that guy’s personal 10 he has up on a pedestal where his subcomms will be very different because he doesn’t view her the same way he viewed that 4.

“although, i DO actually care if other men here understand this stuff (and i think you do to, but i agree with your overall point on getting Rollo to understand)”

lol ya I was exaggerating there. I want ALL guys to understand this everywhere, really. EVERYONE escaping the FI for real, not just learning how to be the best at achieving the FI’s misleading goals.

“just hook up the girls and show them videos of guys holding ‘provisioning’ items”

I say hook them up and put them in a nightclub then send in the RSD crew and a bunch of Forever Aloners from the MISC lol

“bc i really have been stealing a lot of time from my burden of performance responsibilities to do this stuff… ”

lol I am spending way too much time here right now for this discussion but I have to defend my point against like a dozen people all posting at the same time and this is an important subject (for reasons I’ve already mentioned multiple times), but when this conversation topic is done I’ll probably take some time away to handle other shit.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Original Link

@scray @Sentient
“Lol if those behaviors are how I act by default, how are they not every bit as passive as the looks IOIs?”

Basically all Tyler’s “high level game” really is, is having the same good subcomms as that super-Thundercock Josh guy from the Keys to the VIP bio I just linked Culum, except in a body that social conditioning told us and him that doesn’t DESERVE to have those good subcomms. It looks like magic and stands out because every other guy who looks like Tyler LISTENED to the social conditioned message that says he doesn’t deserve to act like Josh because he doesn’t look like him.

Just like when scribblerg got out of his own way and finally acted like he would have back in the day when he had the externals he used to have, just a normal confident dude feeling entitled to his HB9 regardless of his externals not looking like they used to.

It’s the same shit Patrice O’Neil would constantly get exasperated trying to explain:

Trying to educate these guys that they’re fucking SUCCESSFUL MILLIONAIRES, and they don’t feel entitled to get this silly little intern girl who’s ultimately NOTHING but a cute pussy. And Patrice listens to these guys who’ve ACHIEVED society’s socially conditioned money goal and they’re supplicating and qualifying themselves like complete Nice Guy chodes to this girl who has ALL THE ENTITLEMENT IN THE WORLD because she grew up with everyone telling her she’s a special snowflake who can TURN DOWN invites from MILLIONAIRES like they’re DIRT.

It’s why we’re sitting here having to give advice to Softek, a guy who’s trapped in an LTR with an old fucked up BPD chick who’s LITERALLY THREATENING SUICIDE NOW. He doesn’t leave her because he doesn’t think he DESERVES better. He doesn’t think he can GET better. He’s STILL WITH THIS GIRL, despite coming here for advice how many months ago, because ultimately, deep down at his core, he doesn’t think he can get a better girl. ’cause he doesn’t understand enough about attraction to understand that he CAN get better and he doesn’t have the field experience to build the reference experiences in his mind that he DOES deserve better. If he felt entitled to hotter girls because he actually understood subcomms are what attract them and he was going out to develop those subcomms, he would DITCH THIS PSYCHO BITCH in a fucking HEARTBEAT. But he won’t because he doesn’t think he deserves better. He will probably end up getting this chick preggers and then he’ll need all the “stuck in a deadbedroom with a BPD psycho who’s taking my kids away from me, how do I fix??” advice TRM can provide. But personally I’d rather he didn’t end up there in the FIRST place.

“Try strutting around for a day like you own the city and tell me you don’t get more female attention…”

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/field-test-the-maximum-alpha-male-mode-walk/

“And it’s not like guys who look good are still statues…they are radiating subcomms as well.”

24/7. Even in photos you can show a FEW subcomms. That’s why the advice for Tinder photos is have a photo with your face looking away from the camera (showing disinterest VS eagerness aka good subcomms), then one of you with buddies (social proof/leader of men), then one of you with a girl cut off (preselection/jealousy), etc because they’re trying to trigger as many good subcomms as they can in the photos.

That’s why “this male stripper stood beside the girl and her nipples got hard” is bunk. He just stood there did he? Was he standing in a confident pose? Was he standing like a fabulous gay guy flailing his arms? Was he looking ANYWHERE? Was ANYONE looking at HIM? Was he there TO BE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS WITH, aka singalling he has high-value? Did he have the confidence of a guy who STRIPS NAKED AND FLAILS HIS PENIS IN DOZENS OF WOMENS FACES EVERY NIGHT WHO HAND HIM MONEY FOR HIM TO DO IT??? Does that guy have the same subcomms as like, Andy has?? Or scribblerg when he was feeling like an old man who can’t talk to a girl in a coffee shop??

lol

“Here’s more to blow your mind…half the time girls give those IOIs to good looking dudes because their subcomms are beta which makes them seem more approachable and safe and in-league. Chicks who think you’re out of their league are actually somewhat guarded.”

This is another good point. And if you want to extrapolate from it, a lot of those aggressive HB6s aren’t going up to feel the biceps of the guy who KNOWS he deserves better than them. They’re often going up to the guy who they can tell will fuck them after a few drinks because he’s not going to go approach the HB10 at the other end of the bar who’s surrounded by guys that look as good as him.

There’s so much infield that fucks with this theory.

@Andy
“Thx for the effort man”

Happy to do it. No one else is going to question the current belief systems.

And to @Bromeo @Rollo etc: Am I going to question 20+ years of research just because what actually happens infield doesn’t align with what their research says?

…yes. Yes I am.

“I’m so much lighter and happier simply knowing that I have inherent value as a man. Everyone should understand that.”

Even if you’re not useful to society believing this, it doesn’t matter. Like Patrice O’Neal still died from being a fatass. So it’s good to workout and be able to pay your rent and shit and I’ve never said otherwise.

BUT, believing congruently that you have inherent value to women, and demonstrating as much when you interact with them, triggers sexual arousal in women.

@Ajax Parallax
“Walk around like a string is pulling up the top of your head to push your chest out and straighten your spine; open your hips, move slow like you own the entire city you live in like you’re in no hurry and have Blaximus’ coconut-sized balls”

All stuff that can be spotted from a distance, especially if you’re biologically wired to be on the lookout FOR that stuff.

“The way I saw it was he was a big, bright peacock in the distance standing in a group of brown (albeit confident with strong subcomms) pheasants.”

You can see it however you want lol But you’re describing a guy with good subcomms and subcomms are observable from a distance including how others treat you. You don’t need to get up close to a rockstar on stage to know that the guy you’re looking at from the nosebleed seats is high-value, your brain pieces together the subcomms from the fact that people paid money to see him to the fact that everyone is watching him to the fact that he’s standing like a dude who’s able to express himself in front of a million people hanging on his every move.

@interesting view point
Dinklage’s character has all sorts of good subcomms (preselection, the tone of his voice, the way he speaks, the way he carries himself, the way others respond to him, the way he forces people to react to him, his internal confidence, his certainty, leader of men, etc etc):

If Dinklage could act like his character in real life interactions with women and display similar subcomms (rejecting the social conditioning that says he’s not attractive), he would probably do just fine with women.

But then some other midget would say “well he’s got a good face, it’s facial aesthetics bro” and so the hamster wheel continues to spin round and round to avoid the obvious truth that the field demonstrates all around us when you know what to look for and can watch a Keys of the VIP episode and spot all the subcomms going on instead of thinking “well that guy’s jacked so that’s why, and that guy’s skinny so that’s why” and then brushing off the skinny guys who do well and the jacked guys who do bad as “outliers” to avoid the final swallow of the red pill.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Original Link

@scray @Sentient
“Lol if those behaviors are how I act by default, how are they not every bit as passive as the looks IOIs?”

Basically all Tyler’s “high level game” really is, is having the same good subcomms as that super-Thundercock Josh guy from the Keys to the VIP bio I just linked Culum, except in a body that social conditioning told us and him that doesn’t DESERVE to have those good subcomms. It looks like magic and stands out because every other guy who looks like Tyler LISTENED to the social conditioned message that says he doesn’t deserve to act like Josh because he doesn’t look like him.

Just like when scribblerg got out of his own way and finally acted like he would have back in the day when he had the externals he used to have, just a normal confident dude feeling entitled to his HB9 regardless of his externals not looking like they used to.

It’s the same shit Patrice O’Neil would constantly get exasperated trying to explain:

Trying to educate these guys that they’re fucking SUCCESSFUL MILLIONAIRES, and they don’t feel entitled to get this silly little intern girl who’s ultimately NOTHING but a cute pussy. And Patrice listens to these guys who’ve ACHIEVED society’s socially conditioned money goal and they’re supplicating and qualifying themselves like complete Nice Guy chodes to this girl who has ALL THE ENTITLEMENT IN THE WORLD because she grew up with everyone telling her she’s a special snowflake who can TURN DOWN invites from MILLIONAIRES like they’re DIRT.

It’s why we’re sitting here having to give advice to Softek, a guy who’s trapped in an LTR with an old fucked up BPD chick who’s LITERALLY THREATENING SUICIDE NOW. He doesn’t leave her because he doesn’t think he DESERVES better. He doesn’t think he can GET better. He’s STILL WITH THIS GIRL, despite coming here for advice how many months ago, because ultimately, deep down at his core, he doesn’t think he can get a better girl. ’cause he doesn’t understand enough about attraction to understand that he CAN get better and he doesn’t have the field experience to build the reference experiences in his mind that he DOES deserve better. If he felt entitled to hotter girls because he actually understood subcomms are what attract them and he was going out to develop those subcomms, he would DITCH THIS PSYCHO BITCH in a fucking HEARTBEAT. But he won’t because he doesn’t think he deserves better. He will probably end up getting this chick preggers and then he’ll need all the “stuck in a deadbedroom with a BPD psycho who’s taking my kids away from me, how do I fix??” advice TRM can provide. But personally I’d rather he didn’t end up there in the FIRST place.

“Try strutting around for a day like you own the city and tell me you don’t get more female attention…”

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/field-test-the-maximum-alpha-male-mode-walk/

“And it’s not like guys who look good are still statues…they are radiating subcomms as well.”

24/7. Even in photos you can show a FEW subcomms. That’s why the advice for Tinder photos is have a photo with your face looking away from the camera (showing disinterest VS eagerness aka good subcomms), then one of you with buddies (social proof/leader of men), then one of you with a girl cut off (preselection/jealousy), etc because they’re trying to trigger as many good subcomms as they can in the photos.

That’s why “this male stripper stood beside the girl and her nipples got hard” is bunk. He just stood there did he? Was he standing in a confident pose? Was he standing like a fabulous gay guy flailing his arms? Was he looking ANYWHERE? Was ANYONE looking at HIM? Was he there TO BE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS WITH, aka singalling he has high-value? Did he have the confidence of a guy who STRIPS NAKED AND FLAILS HIS PENIS IN DOZENS OF WOMENS FACES EVERY NIGHT WHO HAND HIM MONEY FOR HIM TO DO IT??? Does that guy have the same subcomms as like, Andy has?? Or scribblerg when he was feeling like an old man who can’t talk to a girl in a coffee shop??

lol

“Here’s more to blow your mind…half the time girls give those IOIs to good looking dudes because their subcomms are beta which makes them seem more approachable and safe and in-league. Chicks who think you’re out of their league are actually somewhat guarded.”

This is another good point. And if you want to extrapolate from it, a lot of those aggressive HB6s aren’t going up to feel the biceps of the guy who KNOWS he deserves better than them. They’re often going up to the guy who they can tell will fuck them after a few drinks because he’s not going to go approach the HB10 at the other end of the bar who’s surrounded by guys that look as good as him.

There’s so much infield that fucks with this theory.

@Andy
“Thx for the effort man”

Happy to do it. No one else is going to question the current belief systems.

And to @Bromeo @Rollo etc: Am I going to question 20+ years of research just because what actually happens infield doesn’t align with what their research says?

…yes. Yes I am.

“I’m so much lighter and happier simply knowing that I have inherent value as a man. Everyone should understand that.”

Even if you’re not useful to society believing this, it doesn’t matter. Like Patrice O’Neal still died from being a fatass. So it’s good to workout and be able to pay your rent and shit and I’ve never said otherwise.

BUT, believing congruently that you have inherent value to women, and demonstrating as much when you interact with them, triggers sexual arousal in women.

@Ajax Parallax
“Walk around like a string is pulling up the top of your head to push your chest out and straighten your spine; open your hips, move slow like you own the entire city you live in like you’re in no hurry and have Blaximus’ coconut-sized balls”

All stuff that can be spotted from a distance, especially if you’re biologically wired to be on the lookout FOR that stuff.

“The way I saw it was he was a big, bright peacock in the distance standing in a group of brown (albeit confident with strong subcomms) pheasants.”

You can see it however you want lol But you’re describing a guy with good subcomms and subcomms are observable from a distance including how others treat you. You don’t need to get up close to a rockstar on stage to know that the guy you’re looking at from the nosebleed seats is high-value, your brain pieces together the subcomms from the fact that people paid money to see him to the fact that everyone is watching him to the fact that he’s standing like a dude who’s able to express himself in front of a million people hanging on his every move.

@interesting view point
Dinklage’s character has all sorts of good subcomms (preselection, the tone of his voice, the way he speaks, the way he carries himself, the way others respond to him, the way he forces people to react to him, his internal confidence, his certainty, leader of men, etc etc):

If Dinklage could act like his character in real life interactions with women and display similar subcomms (rejecting the social conditioning that says he’s not attractive), he would probably do just fine with women.

But then some other midget would say “well he’s got a good face, it’s facial aesthetics bro” and so the hamster wheel continues to spin round and round to avoid the obvious truth that the field demonstrates all around us when you know what to look for and can watch a Keys of the VIP episode and spot all the subcomms going on instead of thinking “well that guy’s jacked so that’s why, and that guy’s skinny so that’s why” and then brushing off the skinny guys who do well and the jacked guys who do bad as “outliers” to avoid the final swallow of the red pill.


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
Props on the pull dude. Tons of good entitlement/sexuality/etc in there. Way different than the friend zoney sugar-daddy dates from like a year ago. Sounds like she was legitimately attracted/turned on and good work pushing the escalation out of your comfort zone.

Notice how your frame in this differs from the “selling yourself to the girl” frame. In this interaction you’re the one sizing HER up and just assuming she wants you etc. “if you bore me, I will just check out your tits instead”. THAT’S the frame of “I’m the buyer, I’m going to screen/qualify YOU, not sell myself to you and want you for no reason other than you “let” me talk to you”. And notice how it changes the interaction.

“to give it a shot with the old restroom BJ maneuver”

lolol fuck it, shoot for the moon.

“I have a feeling I sort of dropped in between the two poles..I went past the ASD-risk line with sexualizing but I didn’t do quite enough to really turn her on in the bar – I should have gone full bore into the dirty talk staff and put her hand on my crotch etc.”

ya if you want to see her again I’d say when you txt her turn off the sexual stuff so she can tell herself the next time you meet up that it’s not “just for sex”, to try to minimize ASD and don’t talk about what happened. You’re at a pretty big risk of having hit that “escalated too far without having a green light to a sex location” point where she might flake a bit if she feels like you’ve got the “wrong impression” of her.

When she said she only had a couple hours (so you know you’re probably not going to pull for a night of sex), if it doesn’t look like I can get her home quickly I’ll just keep up the lasers etc but tone down/remove the actual kissing etc, to leave unresolved sexual tension in the air to help minimize flaking on the next date.

Bathroom pull is a low % play with a million things that can go wrong, but it’s awesome and hilarious when it works out lol

“He asked me about my work etc and then asked if I’d join him for a drink.”

Well this story took an unusual turn lol Watch your butthole yo

“I probably would have had a better shot of getting a 24 year old to blow me in the restroom with exactly the same game.”

Ya, to an older chick, being an older dude you’re kind of by default assumed to probably be decent Provider material if you don’t have a bunch of baggage, so when you throw Lover stuff in there you can come off as Provider AND Lover and end up in that “I don’t want him to think I’m a slut” situation, VS if you very pro-actively disqualify yourself as Provider potential.

“This chick SAYS in her online profile that she’s not looking for anything serious, but nevertheless…”

lol on the flip side lots of the girls I’ve fucked from online on the first meet say they’re looking for something serious in their profiles. They don’t know what they want till they’re in the moment and shit starts getting triggered in their hindbrain.

@fleezer
lol soon as Red Pill communities other than PUA acknowledge that looks/muscles don’t trigger sexual arousal/attraction etc, I’ll consider my job complete. But as long as they keep guys stuck in the FI running the rat race, someone’s gotta point out the flaws or we’re just being intellectually lazy like Feminism when they perpetuate the wage gap and rape culture etc because they sound good even though real world evidence contradicts what they say about how the world works.

“mostly in the increased amoging you display now”

I have a lot less patience these days for people asking me the same question I’ve answered a dozen times in that very discussion when other people asked me, and having my position misrepresented repeatedly. Disagreeing and defending myself without sugar-coating it is not AMOG’ing.

“you assume that the girls puas pull represent the feminine ideal.”

No I don’t. This is an incorrect assumption you keep making that I’ve said multiple times isn’t my position. You’re misrepresenting my position.

“you assume that the pua lifestyle represents the masculine ideal”

No I don’t. I literally just wrote to Blaximus: “I’ve never said slaying pussy is the only thing a man should be concerned about in life. But IF he DOES want to get pussy, he should focus on the thing that most efficiently will lead to him achieving that goal.” This is more of that misrepresenting my position thing I keep talking about.

“no one is saying game doesn’t work. GAME WORKS. end of story.”

No shit. That’s why I’ve said probably a dozen or more times since this discussion started that I’m not saying anyone here is saying game doesn’t work. AGAIN this is you misrepresenting my position. Do you see why I’m “AMOG”ing you by not being super polite? Quit putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position.

“But the root of the conflict displayed in this thread requires us to dig deeper. right?”

If you want to provide men with an accurate understanding of how attraction works, yes.

“but when we really dig deeper this shit is about who is more alpha.”

Nah, I don’t care about that. I’m not comparing myself to other guys here lol You’re just internet people to me. This is about making sure what’s being taught to men about the red pill is accurate because it makes a difference in men’s lives.

“who is the biggest alpha. who has the real game.”

You’re projecting because your ego is based around comparing yourself to others, that’s why 90% of your posts are “I have this, I don’t need that, I always knew that, you and Owen this and that, I eat grass made of gold, I have more experience, I fuck magic NAWALT pussy, you’re poor, you don’t have a house” etc etc So you assume that other guys all view the world through the same “who’s the top dog?” frame. You can’t wrap your head around someone not caring about where they compare to other men in whatever imaginary hierarchy you have lol

Like you can’t imagine that when you say “you don’t have a house”, it doesn’t bother me, because you would be bothered by it because you compare yourself to other men in that “who’s winning the FI rat race better?” way.

“To a secure man with a home, a life partner, women on the side, a family, and a life worth conserving and guided by his own internal principles and desires, your lifestyle is shit. absolute shit.”

This is an example of what I meant in the last paragraph lol Like, okay, think my lifestyle is shit, that’s fine. I think it’s awesome, and I support other guys getting whatever lifestyle they want. Rollo’s marriage sounds awesome for him and if a guy knows all his potential options and learns about what he wants/needs in life and he chooses that lifestyle, I wish him the best of luck and will educate him on the risks of it and send him to TRM to learn from Rollo’s wisdom on the subject.

But for the guys who want to get laid, they should fully understand how attraction works so they don’t end up like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3hdk3n/why_dont_hs_girls_care_about_muscle/

This 17yo kid is roiding himself up and not getting the girls he was promised and then everyone in the comment section is telling him he needs to work on his confidence, charisma, etc (aka fix his bad subcomms), which he could’ve just fixed from the start if he had been given proper information about what triggers sexual arousal in women.

“when the zombies come, Ya, I can guarantee you that no group of men is going to let you into the compound. why? because you have nothing to offer as a man.”

I’ll be running around the countryside outside your city gates, impregnating the women and sending them in to slowly create an army of mini-YaReallys to take over from the inside.

“I can say for certain that I don’t want your lifestyle and that any man reading your stuff should be very careful in following you down that path because we are all seeing where it ends. alone behind a keyboard”

Well I don’t live in my grandma’s basement so I guess I’m a step above Roosh at least. lol

“no mention of family. tradition. ethics. principles. charity. respect. home.”

lol tell us more about your principles and ethics and integrity and values when you’re fucking the 15 year olds other men have entrusted you to educate in your classroom. O WUT I WENT THERE??

“I get that you were rejected. I get that it hurt. but when you hold out your lifestyle as being the pinnacle of alpha masculinity…”

I don’t, like I say, you’re misrepresenting my position.

“you depend on other men having the good manners not to break your face with their elbow when you run your fucking mouth”

“I just didn’t give a fuck about him because I was too busy having fun”

lol you definitely sound like a happy person.

“because at some point the adult is going inside to eat lunch. and then you’re on your own”

Is this where you tell me to meet you by the bike racks after school?

“looking for guidance on how to live a life worthy of a real well-rounded man”

So type something useful for them to learn from. No one is stopping you from contributing more than whiny rants and e-badass threats.

“they came to Rollos house to hear his take on it”

Rollo’s article is sitting up there for them to read and discuss. I’m not the one who linked flawed Harvard studies lol

“oh, right. you don’t have a house.”

It’s cool, I’m watching this guy before the zombie apocalypse gets here so you’ll let me into your compound to fuck your daughters:

@scray
“whens your 10 things real men do Cosmo article coming out?”

lol this. Tell me more about what my values are supposed to be according to you and the FI. Should I go to church every Sunday and get married because that’s what a “real man” does?


Tribes

Original Link

via Rational Male

YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Original Link

@Culum Struan
Props on the pull dude. Tons of good entitlement/sexuality/etc in there. Way different than the friend zoney sugar-daddy dates from like a year ago. Sounds like she was legitimately attracted/turned on and good work pushing the escalation out of your comfort zone.

Notice how your frame in this differs from the “selling yourself to the girl” frame. In this interaction you’re the one sizing HER up and just assuming she wants you etc. “if you bore me, I will just check out your tits instead”. THAT’S the frame of “I’m the buyer, I’m going to screen/qualify YOU, not sell myself to you and want you for no reason other than you “let” me talk to you”. And notice how it changes the interaction.

“to give it a shot with the old restroom BJ maneuver”

lolol fuck it, shoot for the moon.

“I have a feeling I sort of dropped in between the two poles..I went past the ASD-risk line with sexualizing but I didn’t do quite enough to really turn her on in the bar – I should have gone full bore into the dirty talk staff and put her hand on my crotch etc.”

ya if you want to see her again I’d say when you txt her turn off the sexual stuff so she can tell herself the next time you meet up that it’s not “just for sex”, to try to minimize ASD and don’t talk about what happened. You’re at a pretty big risk of having hit that “escalated too far without having a green light to a sex location” point where she might flake a bit if she feels like you’ve got the “wrong impression” of her.

When she said she only had a couple hours (so you know you’re probably not going to pull for a night of sex), if it doesn’t look like I can get her home quickly I’ll just keep up the lasers etc but tone down/remove the actual kissing etc, to leave unresolved sexual tension in the air to help minimize flaking on the next date.

Bathroom pull is a low % play with a million things that can go wrong, but it’s awesome and hilarious when it works out lol

“He asked me about my work etc and then asked if I’d join him for a drink.”

Well this story took an unusual turn lol Watch your butthole yo

“I probably would have had a better shot of getting a 24 year old to blow me in the restroom with exactly the same game.”

Ya, to an older chick, being an older dude you’re kind of by default assumed to probably be decent Provider material if you don’t have a bunch of baggage, so when you throw Lover stuff in there you can come off as Provider AND Lover and end up in that “I don’t want him to think I’m a slut” situation, VS if you very pro-actively disqualify yourself as Provider potential.

“This chick SAYS in her online profile that she’s not looking for anything serious, but nevertheless…”

lol on the flip side lots of the girls I’ve fucked from online on the first meet say they’re looking for something serious in their profiles. They don’t know what they want till they’re in the moment and shit starts getting triggered in their hindbrain.

@fleezer
lol soon as Red Pill communities other than PUA acknowledge that looks/muscles don’t trigger sexual arousal/attraction etc, I’ll consider my job complete. But as long as they keep guys stuck in the FI running the rat race, someone’s gotta point out the flaws or we’re just being intellectually lazy like Feminism when they perpetuate the wage gap and rape culture etc because they sound good even though real world evidence contradicts what they say about how the world works.

“mostly in the increased amoging you display now”

I have a lot less patience these days for people asking me the same question I’ve answered a dozen times in that very discussion when other people asked me, and having my position misrepresented repeatedly. Disagreeing and defending myself without sugar-coating it is not AMOG’ing.

“you assume that the girls puas pull represent the feminine ideal.”

No I don’t. This is an incorrect assumption you keep making that I’ve said multiple times isn’t my position. You’re misrepresenting my position.

“you assume that the pua lifestyle represents the masculine ideal”

No I don’t. I literally just wrote to Blaximus: “I’ve never said slaying pussy is the only thing a man should be concerned about in life. But IF he DOES want to get pussy, he should focus on the thing that most efficiently will lead to him achieving that goal.” This is more of that misrepresenting my position thing I keep talking about.

“no one is saying game doesn’t work. GAME WORKS. end of story.”

No shit. That’s why I’ve said probably a dozen or more times since this discussion started that I’m not saying anyone here is saying game doesn’t work. AGAIN this is you misrepresenting my position. Do you see why I’m “AMOG”ing you by not being super polite? Quit putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position.

“But the root of the conflict displayed in this thread requires us to dig deeper. right?”

If you want to provide men with an accurate understanding of how attraction works, yes.

“but when we really dig deeper this shit is about who is more alpha.”

Nah, I don’t care about that. I’m not comparing myself to other guys here lol You’re just internet people to me. This is about making sure what’s being taught to men about the red pill is accurate because it makes a difference in men’s lives.

“who is the biggest alpha. who has the real game.”

You’re projecting because your ego is based around comparing yourself to others, that’s why 90% of your posts are “I have this, I don’t need that, I always knew that, you and Owen this and that, I eat grass made of gold, I have more experience, I fuck magic NAWALT pussy, you’re poor, you don’t have a house” etc etc So you assume that other guys all view the world through the same “who’s the top dog?” frame. You can’t wrap your head around someone not caring about where they compare to other men in whatever imaginary hierarchy you have lol

Like you can’t imagine that when you say “you don’t have a house”, it doesn’t bother me, because you would be bothered by it because you compare yourself to other men in that “who’s winning the FI rat race better?” way.

“To a secure man with a home, a life partner, women on the side, a family, and a life worth conserving and guided by his own internal principles and desires, your lifestyle is shit. absolute shit.”

This is an example of what I meant in the last paragraph lol Like, okay, think my lifestyle is shit, that’s fine. I think it’s awesome, and I support other guys getting whatever lifestyle they want. Rollo’s marriage sounds awesome for him and if a guy knows all his potential options and learns about what he wants/needs in life and he chooses that lifestyle, I wish him the best of luck and will educate him on the risks of it and send him to TRM to learn from Rollo’s wisdom on the subject.

But for the guys who want to get laid, they should fully understand how attraction works so they don’t end up like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3hdk3n/why_dont_hs_girls_care_about_muscle/

This 17yo kid is roiding himself up and not getting the girls he was promised and then everyone in the comment section is telling him he needs to work on his confidence, charisma, etc (aka fix his bad subcomms), which he could’ve just fixed from the start if he had been given proper information about what triggers sexual arousal in women.

“when the zombies come, Ya, I can guarantee you that no group of men is going to let you into the compound. why? because you have nothing to offer as a man.”

I’ll be running around the countryside outside your city gates, impregnating the women and sending them in to slowly create an army of mini-YaReallys to take over from the inside.

“I can say for certain that I don’t want your lifestyle and that any man reading your stuff should be very careful in following you down that path because we are all seeing where it ends. alone behind a keyboard”

Well I don’t live in my grandma’s basement so I guess I’m a step above Roosh at least. lol

“no mention of family. tradition. ethics. principles. charity. respect. home.”

lol tell us more about your principles and ethics and integrity and values when you’re fucking the 15 year olds other men have entrusted you to educate in your classroom. O WUT I WENT THERE??

“I get that you were rejected. I get that it hurt. but when you hold out your lifestyle as being the pinnacle of alpha masculinity…”

I don’t, like I say, you’re misrepresenting my position.

“you depend on other men having the good manners not to break your face with their elbow when you run your fucking mouth”

“I just didn’t give a fuck about him because I was too busy having fun”

lol you definitely sound like a happy person.

“because at some point the adult is going inside to eat lunch. and then you’re on your own”

Is this where you tell me to meet you by the bike racks after school?

“looking for guidance on how to live a life worthy of a real well-rounded man”

So type something useful for them to learn from. No one is stopping you from contributing more than whiny rants and e-badass threats.

“they came to Rollos house to hear his take on it”

Rollo’s article is sitting up there for them to read and discuss. I’m not the one who linked flawed Harvard studies lol

“oh, right. you don’t have a house.”

It’s cool, I’m watching this guy before the zombie apocalypse gets here so you’ll let me into your compound to fuck your daughters:

@scray
“whens your 10 things real men do Cosmo article coming out?”

lol this. Tell me more about what my values are supposed to be according to you and the FI. Should I go to church every Sunday and get married because that’s what a “real man” does?


YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:17 pm
Original Link

“No I don’t. I literally just wrote to Blaximus: “I’ve never said slaying pussy is the only thing a man should be concerned about in life. But IF he DOES want to get pussy, he should focus on the thing that most efficiently will lead to him achieving that goal.” This is more of that misrepresenting my position thing I keep talking about.”

whoops I meant I wrote that to Bromeo, not Blaximus.


YaReally
on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Original Link

@Blaximus❀ Meet me in the bathroom in Culum's bar.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:37 am
Original Link

@SJF
“But don’t shit on others in the the same tribe.”

Dude you take EVERYTHING I say to anyone as some sort of personal insult directly to you and your lifestyle. I’ve been sitting here saying REPEATEDLY in my posts “if guys decide they wanna settle with kids etc that’s cool I wish them the best” and you’re up in arms saying I’m hating on everyone who doesn’t want to go chase poon and poon is the ultimate goal in life and all that matters and anyone not chasing poon is a worthless loser etc etc when all I’ve EVER said is the guys out chasing poon regularly are the guys with the best understanding of how to get poon compared to the guys who’ve chosen to not be out chasing poon anymore (which is a TOTALLY FINE CHOICE). That’s simple LOGIC.

“By snarky comments against those not in your Venn circle”

I reply with snark to snark and have tried repeatedly to have calm rational reasonable discussions about the subject in the face of overwhelmingly emotional spaz-outs. Keyser Rollo etc have been shitting on me for pages but I don’t see you telling THEM to chill out.

“And don’t fake like you don’t know why Rollo acted the way he did”

Don’t tell me what I know. I have no idea why Rollo flipped out, especially when I wrote up those very reasonable questions to try to settle the whole situation down and got endless teenage temper tantrum snark in response.

“There is a panoply of other aspirations that take precedence when you actually achieved a broad based plan of power, wealth, good pussy and good internal mindset and external game.”

YES I AM AWARE OF THIS THAT’S WHY I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT I AM COOL AND FULLY SUPPORT GUYS WHO WANT TO SETTLE DOWN AND HAVE KIDS AND SHIT.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 6:49 am
Original Link

@Softek
I’m think it’s safe to assume fleezer was the original writer of that meme lol


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 10:49 am
Original Link

@Novaseeker
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was getting in the way of everyone arguing with Insanity.

@Chump No More
“Bro, with great respect, your job will never be complete because my and many others here’s reality just does not jive with that belief.”

And Feminists believe in the wage gap.

“Alpha behavior (sub-comms) also plays an important contribution. How much? What ratios? Can you just depend on one and be successful? Maybe, but the most correct answer is I don’t know, and quite frankly, neither do you”

We have significant amounts of evidence to show that the answer to that is not the answer that’s currently being pushed by flawed Harvard studies. Does nobody care about how this stuff actually works? It’s better to just accept and perpetuate the pretty little lies even if it sends guys down paths that ultimately hurt them?

“You’re trying to nail Rollo to an absolutist statement and he tried repeatedly to tell you “I don’t know” and you just wouldn’t have it.”

No I tried to explain my position and ask questions to understand his position and he threw the “hey, ask SCRAY, we can’t KNOWWW anything, I guess I’ll shut down my blog and everyone at RSD should shut down their site!” tantrum unless you think that was a legitimate serious answer.

“There is no cookie-cutter formula.”

What we’re saying is that if you drill deeper it looks like there IS one. But nobody cares because it requires questioning the currently accepted beliefs.

“you could be particularly and subconsciously self-selecting for women who respond readily to sub-comms”

You can LITERALLY see subcomms and their effect for yourself in any video of any human being interacting with any other human being. Why are subcomms being treated like voodoo magic superstition??

“It’s time to just agree to disagree and move on.”

Ok, I will send the guys with looks who can’t get laid your way for help before they off themselves.

“This here, is a great statement btw, because it acknowledges that looks ARE a factor”

Again with the semantics. When I say “Looks with game is super. But guys with both are incredibly rare.”, the point is that it’s INCREDIBLY RARE. The formula is: the more time you spend on your looks, the less time you can spend on your game. That guy dedicated his entire LIFE to basically nothing but girls and lifting with the rest of his life falling apart. That’s what I’ve been saying, that you have limited time in your day so the more time you spend on looks, the less time you have to develop your game, and the game is the important part. Most guys who focus on looks are lacking in game because they’re also doing stuff like “having a real job” and “having hobbies” etc

And like I say, if I was more on than him (ie – tighter subcomms), I would take the girls. Because it’s not his looks that matter.

@Andy
“Do you want Red Pill, or do you want Red Pill lite?”

This. I mean we make fun of the Purple Pill guys for not wanting to look at the harsh realities of what the field is showing that goes against their previously held beliefs, but here we are with a bunch of evidence and explanations for this FASCINATING new dynamic that throws a TON of shit into question and hey, shut up okay, we don’t wanna think about THAT, let’s just throw snark and keep telling guys stuff that doesn’t hold up when pressure-tested because that’s tradition.

“I really have a hard time grasping why only like 3 or 4 people can understand why this is so important”

I have no idea. I’ve said repeatedly what kind of chain of event causes these inaccurate beliefs have and the frustrated men that result from it but nobody cares.

@Sentient
I’m enjoying the field-mining of quotes because I love it when SJWs/Feminists do that instead of addressing the points being brought up (“what?? well 10 years ago you said THIS!!!!!”), but as usual you’re just misinterpreting shit and posting stuff that doesn’t contradict what I’ve been saying.

Like the full sentence with regards to this discussion is: “One thing to keep in mind is that your looks can affect the style of game you should be running” (BECAUSE THE GIRL’S SOCIAL CONDITIONING WILL AFFECT WHAT TYPE OF SUBCOMMS SHE EXPECTS YOU TO HAVE BASED ON YOUR LOOK)

And “A guy who looks like Tyler can be a complete dickhead because visually he’s low-value so girls are intrigued that he’s so cocky and full of himself and an asshole” (BECAUSE THE GIRL’S SOCIAL CONDITIONING SAYS THAT A GUY WHO LOOKS LIKE TYLER PROBABLY WON’T BE COCKY AND FULL OF HIMSELF AND ASSHOLISH)

And “But a guy who’s super good-looking often already has girls on the edge of disqualifying themselves from deserving him” (BECAUSE THE GIRL’S SOCIAL CONDITIONING SAYS HE’S PROBABLY GOT THE GOOD SUBCOMMS THAT SHE’S LOOKING FOR)

I’ve said from the start, despite how many times you misrepresent my position and force me to re-state it, that looks will get you free gimme iois because of the social conditioning that says you’re more likely to have good subcomms, but those aren’t sexual arousal like is claimed and they’re irrelevant in the long-run.

“A big part of why the super obnoxious cocky game I run works is because of my beer gut” (SO GIRLS DON’T EXPECT GOOD SUBCOMMS FROM ME)

“If I had 6-pack abs and a chisled jaw and was wearing an Armani suit, I would have to tone my game down a lot” (BECAUSE GIRLS ALREADY EXPECT GOOD SUBCOMMS SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE SHOVED IN THEIR FACE AS BLATANTLY OR IT’S TOO MUCH AND COMES OFF ARROGANT INSTEAD OF CONFIDENT)

@Novaseeker
“No-one here is against Game. No-one”

It’s a good thing that I’ve never said anyone IS against game then.

“is the absolutist way that some of the commenters, who have basically staged a hostile takeover of the comment space on this blog”

If a mathmetician tells you 2 + 2 = 4 is he being too absolutist and hostile?

“Because it isn’t true.”

The field shows otherwise.

“But if you’re 5’4″ and 350, you can subcomm”

It would be nice if we could test this but very few guys who are 5’4″ and 350lbs HAVE good subcomms because people post flawed Harvard studies that say they shouldn’t feel deserving of girls. Patrice O’Neal is a good example of a fat guy with great subcomms and if you think Patrice couldn’t get pussy, I mean, I don’t know what to tell you lol You can listen to him flirting with girls on his radio interviews and hear the girls getting attracted when he does his thing.

Tyler is an ugly dude with good subcomms and he’s slaying it. But hey, let’s write them all off as outliers, continue pushing the message that guys without looks don’t deserve hot girls, and then wonder why we never see examples of 5’4″ 350lbs guys with good subcomms, while making absolute statements like “looks definitely matter, they just DO”.

“But it’s equally incorrect to say that all you need is a lot of reps sarging, and nothing at all ever matters”

Sarging forces you into situations that test your frame and force you to develop your subcomms ’cause girls will reject you while you’re demonstrating shitty subcomms and you can use your success as a barometer of how your subcomms are developing just like Culum esclating on that girl in the bathroom hallway and scribblerg banging his HB9 etc, which happen because they’re tightening up their subcomms VS Culum the other day when that 6 blew him off at the party and scribblerg being too scared to do anything with his coffee shop girls ’cause their subcomms were off.

@Sentient
“Except when they are somehow “free” then an IOI isn’t great?”

No they’re awesome, but they’re just INTEREST, not SEXUAL AROUSAL. Displaying subcomms is what triggers sexual arousal.

“Did Mystery say “don’t worry about IOI’s brah, she’s not dripping wet from that” or did he say get IOI’s and then advance your game based on that information?”

Because the guys he was teaching don’t know how to spot interest to know when to move on it. Now YEARS later we’ve learned that really it was the subcomms (belief in the routines etc helped give guys good subcomms and the routines etc were designed to demonstrate good subcomms like using pivots to demonstrate preselection or telling a story about dating a stripper etc).

You’re still being deliberately obtuse.

“but like good-looking to where if I don’t do anything the girl will actively ignore me or brush off what I say and turn back to focus on him”

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THEIR SOCIAL CONDITIONING HE IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE HIGH-VALUE SUBCOMMS, BUT THEY AREN’T SEXUALLY AROUSED UNTIL HE DISPLAYS THOSE SUBCOMMS.

How many different way scan I write 2 + 2 = 4?

@scray
“look at the chicks he’s been linked with —- hotter and younger”

Naw, brah, that’s just cause he’s rich, you gotta find an example of a complete nobody who’s defying all social conditioning that someone has decided to follow around and film and put on the internet, except that if you find that then they’re obviously hired actresses or he’s an outlier.

“it’s mind-boggling that people here superficially preach about becoming one’s own mental point of origin but for whatever reason NEED to cling to a bunch of social conditioning about who deserves and gets pussy.”

It’s blowing my mind. I didn’t even realize how deep the FI ran until this whole discussion. There’s a little tinge of purple on the tip of the red pill guys have swallowed apparently.

“it’s more mind-boggling that most of the dudes who disagree aren’t even trying to get < 25 y/o pussy. they're married and pretty much out of the game, save trying to generate the occasional IOI to inspire dread."

But we're assholes if we point out that the guys who are putting their dicks in the girls these guys are flirting with, and are reporting how shit works, might have some new evidence that's worth looking at and re-evaluating old ideas. They'd rather just NOT HEAR IT, while we've got this massive fucking suicide rate of guys offing themselves because they don't understand how attraction works. I can post links of guys roiding up chasing muscles and working their ass off in jobs they hate to chase money and crying frustrated that it isn't helping but nobody cares because the conversation is uncomfortable??

@Scray @Sentient
"yeah they're a factor in the same way a leather jacket is a factor and what kind of expectations that creates."

This. Which is what I've said from the start. A leather jacket itself doesn't trigger sexual arousal, it's the social condtioning around "leather jacket guys are badass bad boys and badass bad boys have good subcomms" that causes the INTEREST in seeing if the guy will display good subcomms that turn her on.

@Novaseeker
"Joe Pesci isn’t 350"

And if we show you a 349 guy or a 351 guy you'll use the same excuse to dismiss it.

"You’re talking about a movie star"

lololol I hadn't even read this reply before I said you would say EXACTLY this. How many random non-celebrity guys have you followed around to take photos of to post on the internet this week? Did you follow that old fat guy in the grocery store home taking pics of him? No?

See you could go out and look for this stuff, or you could look at the infield footage of non-muscular guys getting girls, but hey, those are all actresses and outliers.

@Blaximus
"I think it’s high time to let the subject go."

When the next Elliot Rodgers or George Sodini come around or yet another guy offs himself because he doesn't understand why his girl wasn't attracted to him and cheated or dumped him or won't acknowledge him, despite all his work chasing looks/money, it's because conversations like this aren't allowed to happen. Can't believe no one cares about helping prevent that stuff.

"Except when they make broad statements implicating non-pussy-chasers as less than masculine men"

No one has ever said guys not chasing pussy are less masculine. Quote both of us on that if you're going to keep slandering.

"can be less condescending and less solipsistic in their tone about men in Rollo’s and my station in life"

Really? Scray and I aren't being condescended to? We're just the big bad wolves here?

"one of my red-pill buddies has admonishe me to push back at some of Rollo’s thoughts, but I have not found a thought of his to do that on"

I recommend you don't try it because apparently if you dare to show tons of evidence that anything is off-base it's "get the fuck out of here, we hate you, we just want to talk about stuff we already agree with regardless of whether it's accurate or not and regardless of what reprocussions that has on men and future generations who read this content".

"But my bias is that there is more to red pill awareness and game than chasing < 25 y.o. pussy"

I've never said there isn't.

"And yes, what gets my dander up is when they imply that guys like us (namely old, married, successful in our own personal mission statements) are less worthy of a listening to."

On the subject of putting your PENIS inside a <25yo's VAGINA in 2016? Yes, the guys who are NOT DOING THAT probably have less weight to their opinion than the guys who are DOING THAT. I mean, how can you take offense to that?? That's like me being offended that some guy at NASA says his opinion on flying a rocket into space probably carries more weight than my opinion. That's just common sense, that's not him AMOG'ing or bullying me or telling me to shut up and never talk again.

Unreal.

"In regards to Rollo’s comments, my perception is that you were lecturing him on something he didn’t need to be lectured on."

If he's posting flawed Harvard studies and weak "male stripper's muscles caused nipple hardening" then clearly he needs to be lectured on why they're flawed and how this stuff works.

I would love if I didn't have to say any of this, it would be great if everyone just understood what we were saying and this shit wasn't so controversial.

@Andy
"I think it’s telling that while pretty much everyone here is quick to believe the worst of women like hypergamy, and their inability to love unconditionally; when it comes to probably the single most beautiful thing about them, the fact that they truly don’t value external shit, everyone wants to bury their heads in the sand."

This. I mean, what we're reporting is GOOD FUCKING NEWS. This is like finding out you don't need fuel to make a car drive! This should be EXCITING NEWS that people want to discuss and look for examples of and delve into!! This is the reason guys like Tyler who should have been weeded out of evolution are getting laid by girls out of his league!!

This evidence proves that men should be viewing themselves as having inherent value just for being a MAN and shows that if they can fully internalize that, it'll come through in their subcomms and trigger sexual arousal in women regardless of them looking like Chad Thundercock. Why does everyone want to shut this up and just send men back into the FI rat race??

@scray @SJF
"me and ya are talking about ‘here’s how you go score hotties in their prime, here’s what seems to matter and what doesn’t.’

a lot of you guys simply aren’t going out there and doing that. so….when you try to tell us how it is out here it’s like ‘welllllll………you’re not out here doing it, and from the way you talk about it, it shows…’

me and ya and habd and the others are out there tearing it up every weekend getting into shit.

i’m not telling you guys how to run your marriages or how a super LTR that is monogamous ought to work, because i’m not there doing that."

All of this. It's not some AMOG battle or personal sleight. It's just simple logic. We're the ones out there seeing the changes technology, feminism, etc have created in this <25yo generation and how that affects things first-hand.

And Andy's pretty much nailed this shit from the start of the discussion, I'm unbelievably glad for a few of you guys like HABD/ASDG/etc who get what we're saying and that just makes it all the more surreal that everyone else doesn't and doesn't want to even HEAR it even though it could help a shitload of men and future generations to actually fully unplug them from the FI that I THOUGHT we wanted to help them escape.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 11:05 am
Original Link

@Sentient
“And a lot are, but you disagree with them anyway. LOL. And then you contradict yourselves, gloss over it or invent new words to describe things.”

Because we have infield video we can post that demonstrates that the previously held belief isn’t accurate.

“Look, stand behind your words or disavow them. They are your words. if you feel like looking at what YOU said is off limits, well maybe there is a reason for that?”

I haven’t disavowed any of them. I explained exactly where you’re misinterpreting them and I’ll keep doing it but I’d rather have an actual discussion instead of having to keep reclarifying points that don’t even contradict what I’ve been saying.

“Looks get you IOI’s, no one said IOI’s are equal to sexual arousal.”

According to Rollo his muscular strippers cause nipple hardening and, as he said, we can assume pussy-wettening just standing next to the girl because, as the flawed Harvard study shows, looks trigger involuntary hardwired sexual arousal. That is the ENTIRE REASON this conversation started.

“They are indicators of sexual interest.”

No, they indicate INTEREST in finding out if the guy can demonstrate good subcomms. The study Scray and Rollo posted where they rigged up chick’s vaginas showed that they don’t get sexually aroused by dudes unless they’re being sexual and significantly more when they’re interacting with someone (aka demonstrating good subcomms, like fucking them).


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 11:07 am
Original Link

@Novaseeker
“Only thing that is relevant are his target demographic”

My target demographic is the demographic that’s going to come here down the road on the brink of suicide and divorce raped and unable to see their kids and shit because when someone brought up information that could help them it was dismissed because it’s “derailing” a blog that’s supposed to help men.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 11:58 am
Original Link

@Rollo
“Both Scray and YaReally continually disqualify placing a higher priority on looks than on Game. As I stated way back in Looks Count “if you can have only one, Game is the most important”.”

Neither of us have said that you think looks are more important than game. You can’t quote us saying that because we haven’t said it. I don’t know why this straw-man keeps coming up despite repeatedly saying we aren’t saying anyone here doesn’t think game works or that you think looks are more important.

“Looks, A look, does create expectations”

Social conditioning creates expectations of a look. Like a leather jacket. Like a flat-head. Like a 6-pack. With regards to this discussion those expectations are “this guy will likely have good subcomms which increase his S/R value and, the display of which, trigger sexual arousal” (as backed by the sexual study Scray and you linked).

“Cultivating A look and creating expectations is something even mPUAs have done since they began their infield studies.”

Those expectations are subject to social conditioning is all we are saying because it’s important to understand that those expectations can be manipulated/changed/influenced.

“What guys like Scray and YaReally worry about is that men new to Game will fixate on hitting the gym or buying a new wardrobe or putting a down payment on a sports car and associate that with Game. And they’re right to have those concerns because it’s too easy to disqualify the Game that PUAs espouse if all a man needs to do to get laid is get in shape (jacked or not) or buy an Armani. As I outlined in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite most men want a quick fix to remedy their sexlessness. Most men want to get to the part of the “what do I haffta do to get laid” mechanics without really changing their internals or their perceptions.”

This is our point, and this is why we view this information as so vital. Because if these guys understood that they, themselves, as they look now, with the money etc they have now, could just GET hot girls, by going out infield to develop their subcomms? And understood that the muscles/money stuff didn’t ACTUALLY trigger sexual arousal? Maybe going infield to develop their subcomms would be a more appealing option for the guys who are trying to become attractive to women (or re-attract their wives or get their one-itis crush or build a harem or attract a wife to settle down with 2.5 kids with without having to worry about getting divorce raped because she’s lost “the feels”).

Guys understanding this stuff makes the field a LOT more appealing since it’s the thing that directly contributes to their building attraction, and in the end we end up with more men with better subcomms who are able to get and keep women attracted to them so they can live the lives they want to live.

It blows our minds that anyone would want to not know that information or have it referenced on a blog that generations of men will be reading in book form. We complain about how men are all trapped in the FI and then we don’t want to hear about it when there’s evidence that can help pull them even FURTHER out of the FI.

“This I believe is Scray & YaReally’s concern, that men might see improving their looks as the magic pill to Mastery with women.”

That is a massive concern of ours. And it’s a concern for me because for 10+ years now I’ve SEEN these guys come through the community, we’ve SEEN these guys end up at sluthate, we’ve SEEN them end up suicidal, we’ve SEEN them get emotionally/financially/etc raped over and over by women because they didn’t actually know what they were doing. If guys were brought up to understand this stuff from birth, we might create an entire generation of Tylers who feel completely entitled to what they want in life just because they didn’t get the social conditioning that they SHOULDN’T.

Like it’s not “theory” that these guys MIGHT end up this route. A significant amount of them DO, and we have to witness that shit and try to help them, like the Forever Aloners at the MISC and all the rich/jacked guys we see on death row or befriend and watch sink into depression.

“Either that or they would become despondent and suicidal because their idealized physique is so far out of their reach (however they come to that assessment) or that any look they believe would work for them is like putting on a costume to them. They worry that prioritizing looks above Game will lead to their exploitation and destruction.”

Right. If their goal is to “be jacked”, that’s AWESOME, work out like crazy, hit the gym, do your thing. But if their goal is to “get jacked because everyone told me it’ll get me women (like the Harvard study and male stripper anecdotes)”, that’s setting them up for massive disappointment, just like that 17yo kid on TRP roiding up and frustrated it’s not working and being told “oh you should work on your subcomms now bro”.

“Just mentioning the ancillary significance of looks is enough to jump to the conclusion that guys might follow Eliot Rodger in another rampage.”

Like I say, we SEE this stuff. You can watch Elliot’s videos and read his manifesto, same with George Sodini, and see their frustration/confusion at why girls weren’t attracted to them when they were living up to inaccurate things people told them would work (being a supreme gentleman, having money, working out, etc). There’s a reason Elliot targeted a sorority of the girls he wanted and George targeted girls at the gym, instead of just shooting up a convenience store or something random.

I mean we have Softek sitting here, still IN his relationship with a 31+yo BPD who’s threatening suicide and he’s repeatedly told us he doesn’t think he can find another girl. Where does that kind of mentality come from? Why DOESN’T he believe he can just replace her? Why does he feel so worthless that he’s still with her and what will we tell him when she “accidentally” gets herself pregnant?

“I should point out that before it became SLUTHate the forum was called PUAHate and it came together because of the amount of disaffected guys who’d looked for the quick fix to their girl problems and were disillusioned with the methods they were taught when they gave PUA a shot.”

Ya I have a lot of issues with the marketing in PUA too, but that rant is for the PUA forums lol

“This is exactly what I’ve promoted on TRM and SoSuave for almost 15 years. This is exactly why it’s a specious argument to suggest otherwise when I include that a man improving his physique or his outward appearance might be part of that transformation.”

Except that you’re posting very flawed Harvard studies and dropping anecdotes about male strippers that completely ignore the stuff we have a ton of evidence for. Like, there’s a blind spot in the information here that we’re trying to point out. We have evidence from the field that VERY heavily supports that those things AREN’T a part of that transformation and that using those things causes the guy to build his self-worth on his externals and how well he lives up to the FI rat race instead of his interansl which is how you prevent a scribblerg.

“I feel fairly confident in the belief that it’s better for a man to actually possess the masculine traits, qualities and assurances that those sub-coms imply than to be found wanting after convincingly aping them well enough to get the lay”

This sounds a lot like “fake it till you make it doesn’t work”, and as TONS of evidence shows chasing the rat race of looks/money DOESN’T necessarily build your subcomms. The Forever Aloner’s and death row crews and all the frustrated rich guys in Silicon Valley paying matchmaking services to try to get them laid demonstrate that.

“The path to that Mastery isn’t only built by running 1-30 sets on women in the clubs 4 nights a week.”

It’s just the most efficient way. Every social interaction you have, especially with women, forces you to test your frame and internals and deal with shit-tests and obstacles and develop self-confidence specifically with relation to viewing yourself as attractive and deserving of women because of all the little good reference experiences you rack up and teaches you to not fear failure with women because of all the little failures you rack up, and women will stomp on your face if they detect the slightest bits of weak frame and weak subcomms so you can see yourself progressing as you develop a better frame and stronger subcomms.

“how something I’ve written about has changed or saved their lives or prompted them to a decision they would never have made had they remained in a Blue Pill ignorance”

We are trying to help make sure that you don’t GET anymore E-Mails from men saying you’ve saved their lives because they didn’t get into those situations in the first place, because they understood how attraction worked from the start instead of chasing their tails, that’s all.

It’s difficult to rationalize “create your own mental point of origin” side by side with “but make sure you do your best to fullfill what the FI demands”.

“If that is your genuine concern here, you should simply delete your bookmark of TRM. You’ll have more in common with AVfM and various other MRAs & MGTOWs because each has used this trope verbatim to promote their own agendas.”

The irony in that statement is that the very thing you’ll hate on them for, keeping their eyes shut to how the world really works and refusing to swallow the red pill, is exactly what’s going on here.

But thanks for a legitimate reply instead of whatever that shit from before was. I appreciate a well thought-out response even if I disagree with what you’re saying and hope that you think about what we’re saying over time instead of flat-out dismissing it. It’s not admitting some flaw to re-evaluate information or look deeper into it, that’s just science.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Original Link

@Trent Lane
“Serious questions, no snark or hate intended.”

Happy to answer anything I can on the subject.

“Every hour spent in the gym is an hour wasted of sarging with xy-interactions under your belt” is the “Just lift bro and the girls will fall from the sky” in negative extreme. ”

Read Scray’s field reports from when he started out through his progression. Read scribblerg’s latest Field Report where he finally banged an HB9 because he got his subcomms/internals on lockdown after eating shit infield over and over. Read Culum’s latest report and then go back and read his sugar daddy reports from when he started. etc etc etc

If you go out and you put yourself into social interactions and do your Field Reports and get advice etc from guys who know what they’re talking about, you will directly improve the thing that will attract women. That’s all we’re saying. Your statement is like going “saying if you want to fly rockets into space then every hour spent in the gym is an hour wasted of building and flying rockets into space, that’s just the equivalent of just lift bro”. It’s not the equivalent. Practicing flying rockets into space will make you better at flying rockets into space. Working out will make you better at working out. There’s no evidence that working out will make you better at flying rockets into space and the more time you spend at the gym the less rockets you’re flying into space. Simple math/logic.

“wouldn’t you agree that, from a Red-Pill-Perspective, regarding the life-long Burden of Performance, Hypergamy, Rollos SMV-chart and so on, it would be more wisely to recommend a moderate and holistic long time approach, where you say, “Look, lift three times a week for one hour max at a time, sarge 3-4 times a week, don’t go crazy with either one, don’t skip either one, watch your diet, watch the booze, work on your career, have goals/hobbies/a social circle/a life … etc.”?”

That stuff is awesome. But if a guy’s frustration is “my wife isn’t attracted to me” “I haven’t had a woman touch me in years” “I’m still a virgin and want to commit suicide because I’m such a loser for still being a virgin” “I can’t leave her because no other girl would like me since I’m ugly/poor/whatever” “my girlfriend cheated on me with this other guy” etc, those are ultimately problems of not understanding how attraction works and we’re giving him a direct roadmap to fixing that.

Understanding that looks/money don’t matter would probably have helped Elon Musk. Or the bodybuilding forum CEO who bought his girlfriend a matching Tesla while she was fucking Dan Bilzerian. Or any number of rich good-looking dudes/celebrities who get cheated on or end up in deadbedrooms etc. Like, this stuff extrapolates to long-term relationships and marriages and understanding HOW to trigger Hypergamy and HOW you can modify the SMV chart and how women can re-condition to execute the War Brides dynamic and why men can’t be their own mental point of origin (because they’re chasing someone else’s value system) and why men can be good-looking/rich and still not get/keep women and why ugly little trolls like Tyler can go slay it with girls and why Scray can get laid being a manlet and why scribblerg lost all his confidence when his externals were taken away by time/divorce and why a guy can slay it with girls one night and then utterly bomb all night the next night and the frustration in that and why a guy can be attractive to his wife at the start and then lose her attraction down the road and end up in a deadbedroom and how dread game works etc etc

Like this is the underlying fundamental building block of EVERYTHING.

“It is entirely possible to combine sarging and lifting at a rate of 3/3-4 per week, I’m doing it right now besides working an 8-5, having friends, hobbies and shit”

You have a lot of dedicated compared to other guys and that is awesome. But most guys aren’t and every hour in the gym is an hour less field experience, that’s all we’re saying. If that’s acceptable to you, like if you’re cool with your skills not reaching the level they potentially could, that’s totally fine. But you should be made aware that you’re making that decision, instead of being told that the gym will make girls soak their panties around you which is what guys are being told with those flawed Harvard studies and male stripper anecdotes.

“So, despite the question if looks/muscularity or subcomms/game really trigger sexual attraction/arousal,”

This is the ENTIRE question behind this conversation though. So that men understand it’s their subcomms that are important, not their looks.

“would you all agree that, from a red pill perspective of bettering a mans life long-time it would always be wisely to say: work on both?”

Ya, I’ve said a bunch of times that it’s great. As long as men understand the tradeoff they’re making instead of being misinformed. But it’s so taboo to even DARE suggest that “hey, uhhh, we’re finding out here that this gym stuff doesn’t actually matter for attracting women and doesn’t actually cause the sexual arousal everyone says it causes…maybe that’s an important thing that men should know? No? I’m an asshole? 20 years of studies? 15 years of writing? Get the fuck out of here? Well, okay, just figured it might be something relevant.”

You wouldn’t want to buy a car under the pretense that it’ll get you to a destination, only to find out when you actually try driving there that it breaks down on a highway in the middle of nowhere. But if you knew that car was only going to make it that far, you could decide whether you want to buy that car or not.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Original Link

@Trent Lane
Here’s some snippets from Scray’s early field reports, so you can see why exactly we stress that the field is what fixes/develops your subcomms and why it’s so important to rack up as much field experience as possible when you’re starting out.

His original mindsets, fully socially condiitoned and in the FI where looks/money matter:

“I’m getting into a space where it’s starting to feel hopeless. I recently started sarging, and my approach count is still low—a solid 30….but, as anyone can guess, the success rate thus far is zero. Rejection now feels like I have zero value to these people as a man, and while I’m thankful for the red pill…it still hits hard. I guess it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the majority of what attracts women is out of one’s control, i.e. looks + height.”

“Basically, I’d say short men = fat women in SMV.”

“Yeah, and every time I hear about a short guy who makes it hardcore with women, it’s always some guy who literally has 10/10 facial aesthetics.”

“I feel like…when I finally get the body I want, and the facial fat leaves my cheeks/neck, I’ll be able to run better game because I’ll just feel so much better about myself.”

And then he hits the field and the field SHOVES IN HIS FACE where his flaws are because of the way people/girls are reacting to him when he engages in infield interactions:

“I started dancing with a girl, and she was somewhere between a 4 and a 6. She made a face, then expected me to notice she made a face. I was focused on other things besides her face at the time, so she informed me that when she made that face, it meant that she was ‘creeped out’ and didn’t desire my company.”

“I blinked and held up my hands. Guess what happened? No less than 6 white knights arrived and told me how uncool I was being. Granted, I guess that was kind of a dick move — or hey, maybe certain people need to lighten the fuck up. So uh…yeah…..literally shoved away on the dancefloor”

“I gotta say…I mean, the way they say it and the way it feels, the teasing just doesn’t come off as overtly flirty to me. It just seems like they’re ripping on me. Probably have to recheck my body language and tone. Some other highlights of the night — pretty sure I got AMOG’ed a few times and had no comebacks. Here’s an example that at least felt like an amog:”

And over time with more field experience he starts seeing feedback from the field that lets him know that his internals are improving:

“a girl in my social circle that went on the trip did say that ‘yeah, it’s been cool getting to know you better. You’re actually a really cool guy, I mean, I’d date you.’ Now, in my mind I actually know that she knew me the exact same before now (we didn’t interact particularly much)…so, I mean…it just seems to be me starting to change.”

“On the plus side, at this point I really don’t give a fuck about approaching. I mean, I get the butterflies, but I just do it.”

“Here’s the shocking thing….that resistance from the other night? Gone. Replaced by — it wasn’t attraction — but just this sort of open-mindedness. Like, they all gave me their focus, and it felt like…’all right kid, you’ve got a few minutes — WOW us.””

“Now….listen, this may sound stupid, but liiiiike….having a 9 legit show interest in what I said there just was….well….just about the best thing ever.”

“I mean………I’m pretty sure I made several mistakes. I -know- I did, because lol I wasn’t even ready for people to respond to me in a positive way.”

“As for the other sets. They were nicer this time, so that was nice. But I mean…when that 9 (or 8-8.5 whatever) laughed, even a little, it was a good moment. A hopeful moment.

Cold approaching seems pretty solid, and I totally disagree with me other friend who thinks it’s ‘dumb’ and ‘cool people don’t do that.’ I watched pretty much every other guy in the pubs, clubs, etc. just stand there like chodes…messing with their bros or keeping to their social circles. It’s empowering.

Ya, you were totally right about talking to hotter chicks. Way more fun.”

And compare that shit to what he does infield now and his mindsets about his height or looks and his entitlement to women etc

Like the internals above and the reference experiences he’s gathering there aren’t things he’s going to develop through lifting some weights and trying to become the best at running the rat race looks-wise, and every hour that a guy is NOT infield is an hour less of these little victories/failures and tests of his subcomms and feedback etc that he’s going to have.

If he’s COOL with that, like if his goal is just overall general red pill stuff or he wants to get jacked for whatever reason, that’s COOL, totally FINE BY ME. Just as long as he’s making that conscious decision and understanding the opportunities he’s giving up and what exactly the things he’s choosing to do will ACTUALLY provide in terms of benefit and his goals, VS right now where it’s all shrouded in “just get jacked and girls will soak their panties around you bro” that doesn’t hold up when pressure-tested infield.

Scray chose to work on both, but he was extremely dedicated, he did his FRs, he took advice and applied it, he understood that game was important and he learned from field experience how little his looks ACTUALLY mattered and he didn’t get sidetracked from the field because I was there drilling into his head over and over that if he just executes the right steps he’ll get the results other guys get.

You can check Scray’s FRs out in my archive if you want to follow his journey and see the field developing him (click on the November 2012 up to February 2015 on the left column under Scray FRs)

http://yareallyarchive.com/scray/2012/11/

@Harrison Bergeron
“You took yareally’s quote from 2014 saying different looks come with different behavioral expectations, which gels entirely with what he’s argued this week, that those expectations are the socially conditioned part.”

For the record, a big part of why my quotes from 2014 align with what I’m saying now is because from the start I’ve just been reporting what happens infield, not pushing a theory. I don’t even remember writing half of that stuff, but it doesn’t contradict what I’m saying now because it’s just reporting dynamics that happen infield, not theory about what probably happens (and if I’m waxxing keyboard theory I make huge disclaimers about it being mental masturbation so there’s no confusion).

BUT, the tactic of quote-mining and then presenting old quotes that don’t ACTUALLY contradict me and presenting them in a “hah, GOTCHA!!!!” light as if they DO contradict me, instead of just addressing the present discussion, is a dick debate tactic.

@Via Vitae
“How is this calibrated?”

It’s an accurate assessment of what happens.

“Want to talk hyperbole? you could be sending a trail of lemmings over the cliff with your inability to see past your own POV!”

Describe how.

“How is it not pussy pedestalizing to impute such power to women when really the power lies inside the man himself?”

What? The power does lie inside him, but he’s been conditioned to not believe that, just like most men. And that conditioning is what has him allowing to have that kind of power over him.

“And how is wrapping your whole lifestyle around women making yourself your own mental point of origin?”

As I’ve said, the field teaches you about yourself and you learn to define your own value system. You have to have your values challenged and confront them to learn what your value system is.

“If they don’t like me for me, they can go to hell.”

You know what this is? Trying to teach him good internal subcomms/mindsets. You know what I’m trying to do in this whole discussion? Make the point that this is an important thing.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Original Link

@kfg
lol clearly I don’t know anything about rocket science. That’s why I wouldn’t be offended when a NASA scientist told me his opinion held more weight on the subject.

The video you linked is an interesting watch. I recommend guys watch it a few times, including with the volume off to pay attention fully to the body-language, and in general watch it thinking hard about why “preselection” in this case turned them OFF (if women “ping off their environment”, look at his body language right before the clip is shown, I don’t even know who this chick IS but I ASSUME being with her is somehow shameful just because of his subcomms on display), how/why the rest of the girls react the way they react to the things that happen, how he handles shit-tests, etc etc

Lots of little dynamics going on here. This is an interesting show because they can basically only demonstrate LOSING attraction with how the show is set up lol Like, the show is built around “is this guy going to live up to the socially conditioned expectations of his subcomms? And what happens when he DOESN’T?”

Interesting show thanks for linking, going to watch the rest of these while I work.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Original Link

@Trent Lane
“in your experience, do the important aspects of a mans life BESIDES game autocorrect themself if you get to an excellent game level?”

There is a LOT of overlap of the skills you learn from infield translating to the rest of your life, since a significant amount of the rest of your life involves social interactions, networking, influencing others, demonstrating value, confidence, solid communication skills, etc, etc which aren’t thinks you learn lifting weights.

“Couldn’t you see an moderate approach to lifting/sports and so on as supportive of your game if you don’t fall into the “Muscles will make it rain girls”-extreme?

I’m totally cool with that as long as the guy doing them understands that the lifting/sports aren’t really relevant to triggering sexual arousal in women. Like, I just want men to be properly informed because they’re currently being led to believe that muscles = arousal.

Personally, and I’ve described this before, I think a guy should ultimately hyperfocus on learning pickup when he’s in his early 20s and tons of social opportunities are conveniently available (university, dorms, the partying lifestyle, etc etc) and get it handled in a couple of years when he can generally waste a couple years like lots of people do before they settle into an actual career. Then from 25 and on he can focus on career, muscles, etc whatever, because he’s already got the solid internals/subcomms on lockdown and KNOWS those other things are just for his OWN personal benefit/happiness and that he doesn’t NEED them to get women and shouldn’t define his value BY them.

That’s the way I’d LIKE to see the next generation of men approach things. But when you have that guy in his early 20s focusing on “muscles will make it rain girls”, that guy hits his late 20s without the kind of success he was promised, and then he’s told “you gotta work on your internals/subcomms bro” except now he’s almost 30 and his friends have settled down and don’t go out and there’s no one knocking on his dorm room door to invite him to the campus bar with cute girls his age everywhere and he’s locked into a career maybe in some city that isn’t great for gaming and he left all his social circles behind so he’s friendless except for a couple married or lame dudes from work etc so now he’s got a significantly more difficult/intimidating field he has to venture into to gain the field experience he could’ve gained if he had been properly informed from the start.

Make sense? I’m just promoting efficiency and the easiest route to handle ALL of this stuff in the end. Hyperfocus on the subcomms/internals/game/infield first, THEN do all this other stuff with a more solid internal foundation that won’t be shaken if you take a financial/looks hit down the road or have to compete with guys who have more money/looks than you or worry when your girlfriend/wife is interacting with guys with more money/looks than you.

“Couldn’t you view an hour in the gym as a preparation for sarging?”

Ya totally. But that doesn’t change that that’s still an hour less time actually SARGING and collecting those reference experiences that build your subcomms/internals. An hour doesn’t seem like an hour is much, but ask how many guys actually go out to sarge for an hour every day and you’ll find it’s an EXTREMELY low minority of them. You can pull girls for sex in under an hour. You can make a new social circle of friends in under an hour. You can meet girls that you end up in amazing fulfilling relationships with for years in under an hour. You can have an unexpected sticking point shoved in your face and realize in an epiphany that you need to address and fix it in an hour. A lot can happen in that hour.

“That’s true, tho. For these problems, only an understanding of attraction and game are the answer.”

My issue is mainly that the actual way attraction functions isn’t taught so those answers aren’t there, and the discussion OF how it functions is now taboo.

@Via Vitae
“And selectively ignoring the part of the discussion upthread pointing to super slow HIT workouts that can be done literally in 10 minutes a week.”

Again, as I’ve said multiple times: do you see that 10 minute HIT workout posted on the TRP forums? If that was being promoted, that would be awesome. But what’s promoted by the looks matter crew is about an hour a day, 3-4 days a week. I mean, post it there, I’m sure they’d want to see it! Let’s see how many of them drop all their 3-4 days a week gym time for it and replace that time with sarging.

“thinking that “most guys” who are not dedicated enough to lift will magically be dedicated enough to hit the club to get chain rejected 1-30 times a night”

They might go do it if they were told the ACTUAL benefits of it compared to stuff like lifting.

“At least iron doesn’t actually laugh in your face, or AMOG you”

I mean…you have to understand that you’re basically supporting what I’m saying: that the iron doesn’t teach you to build strong subcomms/internals in social interactions…because it DOESN’T laugh in your face or try to AMOG you. That’s my whole point lol How strong would your arms be if you never had to lift anything? They would atrophy and be weak because you aren’t putting them through training that forces them to toughen up.

“And as others have said, taking on challenging goals in training, sport, business, hobby, career, education teaches them about themselves and their value systems. Game is not the only path to self-knowledge.”

But those don”t produce the same development that a girl laughing in their face or guys AMOG’ing them produces. That’s my point. Because almost every time I take guys who are successful in other areas (business, hobbies, career, education, whatever), and put a hot girl in a nightclub in front of them, they chode out and freeze up.

Because they’re learning situational confidence and only a few of the subcomms that actually relate to interacting with and seducing women. Hitting the field DIRECTLY forces you to develop subcomms that relate to interacting with and seducing women.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 2:59 pm
Original Link

@Softek
Notice if you re-read your post you’ve stopped mentioning bad things about her. You’re rationalizing her behavior as normal because your brain is looking for any reason to keep you where you are (your brain WANTS to get her pregnant and fulfill your replication hardwiring, your brain doesn’t care if you’re happy in the situation that comes along with that). And you’re also pulling the “I’m bad TOO” thing to minimize the severity of her actions.

This is a girl who cheated on her boyfriend with you when you first met, and is now threatening suicide (being confused is normal, threatening suicide is BPD shit), and this is a girl that you’re actually using the words “I don’t know if I do or don’t want a relationship” with lol

Be aware of how your tone is shifting and why, and how your brain is starting to rationalize her behavior so that you stay with her.

“At the same time, I don’t, deep down, BELIEVE that I have options, which could be an unconscious contributor to my ONE-itis.”

This has been my point really. You’re not choosing her out of her actually being a good option. You’re choosing her because you don’t believe you have the value to GET another woman as good or better than her. You believe that if you leave her you’ll either be alone or with lower quality women at best. Because social conditioning has told you that you’re worthless compared to that model on that video kfg linked and you aren’t collecting the field experience reference points like in those Scray FR snippets I posted, to counter that belief…so why WOULD you leave her? As far as you’re concerned leaving her will be a step DOWN.

“It could be argued that putting me in a position where I HAVE to choose, and it’s all on me, is not right of her to do.”

It’s not right. She doesn’t owe you pussy and you don’t owe her commitment.

“I mean really, maybe my desire is to have something like fleezer has, where a girl is monogamously committed to me, but I’m free to see other girls on the side and she’s OK with it.”

Even if you DO want that, this girl is clearly not going to let you have that. She’s demonstrated that repeatedly…and this is when she knows you can LEAVE HER ASS. When you have a baby or live with her etc where leaving is hard, and you’ve taught her that you won’t leave even if she threatens suicide and yells at you etc? I mean, do you expect her behavior to get BETTER or WORSE when you aren’t doing what she wants down the road?

“Does she have issues? Sure. So do I.”

You don’t have a legal system that will allow you to put her in JAIL with a false accusation when you get emotional one night and want to lash out at her. You don’t have a family court system that will take your future kids away from her and give them to you along with child support payments etc when you get mad at her and want to leave her. You are not the one everyone will believe when she posts on Facebook that you abuse her and everyone is shitting on you as you try to tell your side of the story and realize no one wants to hear it including friends you DO have.

You having issues doesn’t matter compared to her having issues. You are the one taking all the risks in a relationship.

“As far as crazy goes I don’t think it’s THAT bad”

lol of course you don’t. Because you don’t WANT to. Would you let your future son date her? Or a close buddy?

“like she would SCREAM at him for hanging out with me”

Remind us again what your girl did when she found you had been looking at porn? Do you think your girl isn’t going to become JUST as bad as your old friend’s girl when she knows you won’t/can’t leave her? When she’s currently threatening suicide, a thing she knows you are sensitive to?

“but then said she might be open to it, as long as things didn’t get serious with the other girl”

Has ANYTHING she’s done since then suggested she would ACTUALLY be open to it? lol

“Months later, after a LOT of frame-dropping on my part, I wonder how much I’ve changed her perception of me?”

What did you think of your old friend with the BPD girlfriend when he didn’t walk away from her? Did his GF respect him?

“She KNEW that I went on porn a lot before we hooked up. Why would she fuck a guy that goes on porn, when she thinks porn is disgusting and could never be with a guy who goes on porn?”

Because she knows you don’t know your worth and will consider a relationship with her. She smelled your weak frame a mile away and the tests she’s given it have only reinforced that she can do whatever she wants and you’ll lap it up like a dog and come back for more lol

“I got every pass in the book. I was the kind of guy she told me later on that she never would get with normally, and she has no idea how this happened.”

Lucky you! Go talk to those other guys and ask them about your prize lol

@kfg
“They know about it at bodybuilding.com, but guys there are, for the most part, fucked in the head and body dismorphic.”

I’ve never seen anything about it on TRP and the BB culture is sad as fuck. My point isn’t that it doesn’t work though, like hey, I’m convinced, I’m sold, 10 min a week sounds great to me. But I’m not the one that needs convincing. The next generation of men do…and the next generation of men is being raised thinking muscles trigger sexual arousal in women. That’s a problem and the red pill community is the only one that can get away with telling them the truth, but so far only the PUAs will.


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Original Link

@scribblerg
“Until you recognize that interest, attraction and arousal for women does happen independent of being good looking, you really are missing the essence of game, and in particular how women make mating choices”
❀ In my head I wasn't cheering for your recent HB9 lay report because you got LAID…I was cheering because you SAW the Matrix and experienced it first-hand. Just like Culum is starting to.

"Spending time on looks will only reinforce your perceptions of yourself that you are somehow “earning it” by being good looking enough. Nope – I’m entitled to pussy just because I want it. I don’t “deserve it”. I don’t “earn it” – I fuck it, if I can. I don’t give a fuck if the girl thinks I’m the hottest guy, in fact, I love the fact that I’m not. I love that I’m face fucking this HB9 while her BF is at work and then she takes me out to dinner afterwards and pays me, he he. When I’m definitely worse looking than her BF who’s 20 years younger than me."

lol this. I think it's HILARIOUS that I look at the girl and I in the mirror and it's like "wtf is she doing with THIS lolol" while she's feeling my body up and her much better looking much richer orbiters are texting her hoping she'll let them buy her dinner.

"What they want is to not be bored. They want to be mystified, challenged, surprised and to laugh"

Emotional impact. Which ultimately comes from displaying good subcomms.

"Getting that women are operating from a foundation of sand has been mindblowing. Men can’t actually relate – what we want doesn’t change inside the way it does for women."

That's why I'm stressing what I'm stressing. We directly influence/manipulate their value system because they ping off us and their environment and stronger frames for how to feel. That's why IN a relationship with you she'll think everything you do is perfect, but when she loses attraction she'll think everything you do is shit.

"Part of why it’s working is that women find my mindset so distinctive these days"

Compare your mindset to the mindset of like, a 21yo kid who's convinced looks/money matter and doesn't think he deserves hot girls and is seeking validation from her that he's got value etc etc Which kind of guy can a hot girl be herself around and trust to steer the ship?

"And if stop for a second and consider “how I look” while doing that, well, I’m fucked"

When you think how you look matters, it'll matter to her. Because she pings off you.

"And just know that a wiley Silverback like me is sneaking in while you are at work and fucking that girl who loves how you look. He he."

lol props on your massive leaps and bounds forward in your internals dude!


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Original Link

@HowlingManTodd
Thanks for the support yo

@Rollo
“YaReally has conceded that looks at the very least advantage a man with “interest” and freebie IOIs”

Yup, I have no disagreement with that. From the very start my point has been that yes, you will absolutely get free gimme IOIs with looks. It’s just that:

1) that’s not sexual arousal, that’s just interest in finding out if you can actively display good sub-comms which actually trigger arousal

2) what constitutes “good looks” is socially conditioned (flat-head, 80s clothes, race, etc) and as such can be manipulated/change (even in the moment)

3) men need to understand that hitting the field is what builds their subcomms that DIRECTLY relate to triggering arousal in women, not lifting

4) basing your confidence on your externals is bad because they can be taken away or lost or devalued when everyone else has them (or has better)

and 5) the time you spend in the gym is time you miss out on directly improving the thing that triggers arousal in women

That’s it. If those 5 caveats were mentioned when people say looks matter, I would have no beef with what’s taught because it would be properly informing men of how attraction works.

Nothing real controversial there and I’m not telling men not to work out or saying anyone is saying game doesn’t work or looks are more important. These are just the cold hard facts of how attraction works from infield. I think it’s great if someone works out, as long as they understand these things about it and make the conscious decision based on their personal goals in life (whether it’s chasing pussy, being well-rounded, or being a bodybuilder).

“Good looks or even marginally getting in shape can give a man confidence to make an approach he might not have considered otherwise.”

“If looks imply the possibility of good sub coms why would you discourage a guy from getting into better shape?”

Because it’s situational confidence, just like a bartender who’s confident when he’s in the bar he works in and gets laid like a rockstar there, but loses his confidence when he’s in another bar or walking around in the day or interacting with people who think the nightlife is full of low-value people etc, because he’s based all his successful reference experiences on his value while being a bartender in his bar.

It’s the reason Scray can tool his jacked buddies by devaluing their efforts in the gym and why Arnold can make another bodybuilder feel insecure by asking if he’s been skipping leg day and why scribblerg was depressed as fuck when he lost his old prime looks etc. It’s building weak men with weak frames that can be fucked with because they haven’t worked out in a couple weeks and now their bodyfat is 15% instead of 12% and they don’t feel like they deserve the girl.

Beacuse those guys have/had attached their confidence/value situationally to their looks and it’s ultimately preventing them from developing a strong internal frame even if they’re getting laid.

You are not your job, you are not your money, you are not your khakis, you are not your muscles.

If getting pussy really doesn’t matter, like everyone keeps telling me, then I think everyone would agree that developing internal inherent confidence is better than situational confidence that can be taken away or devalued even if it means less pussy at the start of the journey, right?

@Scray
“because most dudes who bleat about how great being fit has helped them aren’t fit at all and they don’t look much different. they just feel super confident and women have picked up on the subcomms.”

Like Tyler says about his Blueprint years: “Guys, I didn’t even KNOW I was fat! I had NO FUCKING IDEA! I thought I looked AWESOME. Because all the feedback I was getting infield was that I was hot because I was still getting all these girls so I just thought I looked amazing” lol


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Original Link

@Scray
“@rollo

”I’m not even suggesting anyone follow my lead, but don’t sell anyone the idea that they can’t practice Game and get into better shape at the same time.”

me and you agree on that.”

And I agree too. It’s just that, by the sheer MATH of X number of hours in the day and how much you can DO infield in an hour, 3-4 times a week, your game will be anywhere from hundreds to thousands of sets behind where it COULD be if you spent that gym time infield. That’s all. It’s just math.

It’s no more controversial than saying if you play the guitar 100% of your free time, you’ll be closer to reaching your potential guitar skills than if you play it 75% of your free time so you can spend 25% of your free time on tennis.

If that’s a tradeoff you want to make, that’s TOTALLY FINE, as long as you aren’t being told that playing tennis will make your guitar playing better, which is what’s happening when you say “tennis = better reviews of your band’s performance”


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Original Link

@Rollo
“they are saying that working out is a waste of time when a guy could put that time to better use by just staying out of shape and using it infield”

Which, if your goal is to improve your results with women and understand attraction and build internal confidence not based on externals, IS a better use. I mean, just by pure logic lol That doesn’t seem like a controversial statement.

I’m not saying there aren’t health benefits and that we haven’t been socially conditioned to feel better if we achieve “better” looks (by our socially conditioned standard, just like the flatter a guy’s head gets in that other culture the more his self-esteem may go up).

But that’s situational confidence tied to an external (because every time you look in a mirror and say “I am getting in shape so I have more value!!” you are subscribing deeper and deeper into the notion that your value is tied to being in shape) and that “situation” can be taken away or devalued, just like tying your confidence to drinking booze or wearing your favorite shirt or your new pair of shoes etc. Again I don’t think that’s a very controversial statement, it’s simply logical.

“I’m suggesting that guys who are already overweight who advocate this simply don’t have any incentive to get in shape so their assessment of what time and effort it takes to get into shape is distorted by what they think is ideal.”

I am just going by what I see on red pill forums, which promote a general workout regimine of around an hour, 3-4 times a week. I read the workout advice around the spheres, I just don’t take it lol


YaReally
on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:41 pm
Original Link

@having a bad day
“”@Rollo
Good looks or even marginally getting in shape can give a man confidence to make an approach he might not have considered otherwise.”

who exactly is doing the ‘giving’ in this idea?…

and whose frame would a man have to be in for that (gift of confidence) to be valuable to him?…”

Here’s a mic for you to drop:


YaReally
on May 24th, 2016 at 6:54 am
Original Link

@Via Vitae
“Why can’t a guy just be confident because he did something hard, that took daily discipline, planning, hard work, and PAIN to accomplish?”

Why can’t he just be confident? End of sentence.

“Can’t he just have subcomms from that? Oh, and say I was talking about being a Navy SEAL, instead of just lifting, would it be OK then?”

Like SFC Ton says: “a motherfuckingshitton of operators are fearless in a fire fight and all goofy and awkward around chicks so I am pretty sure being confident in one area doesn’t automatically carry over to another. ”

Is he interacting with women as a Navy SEAL? Is he getting shit-tested by his personal 10 staring him in the eyes? Is he touching women’s bodies? Is he learning to express himself in social situations?

You can develop SOME subcomms through other means. Like ya, you’re probably gonna feel confident swimming if you train as a SEAL. You’re gonna probably have good posture, some assertiveness and probably do find handling yourself around other men etc. But you’re not developing most of the ones that translate directly to getting women and a lot of the subcomms you develop are situationally attached to doing your SEAL stuff and fall apart when you’re thrown into an environment you’re not comfortable or feel judged in.

Like I say, I’ve hung out with doctors, lawyers, MMA dudes, jacked dudes, successful blue collar alpha dudes, etc etc, guys you would assume, because they’re SO CONFIDENT and have such GREAT GENERAL CONFIDENT SUBCOMMS when they’re in their comfort zones doing their really impressive thing they’ve accomplished, would slay it with women. But I put them around hot girls and 99% of the time they go into full chode mode, because they haven’t been honing the direct subcomms that relate to attraction.

Take these guys infield and throw girls at them and watch them crash and burn.

I mean take scribblerg, go read his posts here from a year ago. He was a super badass his whole life and then he lost some of his externals and was scared to even talk to girls in a coffee shop. The THEORY is that “get confident in one area and that’ll translate to staring down hot girls infield” but the INFIELD REALITY is that that confidence VERY very very rarely carries over infield.

This is where ARMCHAIR THEORY VS INFIELD REALITY collide lol

Like Andy says: “Put me in a room full of executives and I can be a cool charismatic guy. But put a really hot chick in front of me and usually I freeze up” This is just how it goes. If you want to get good at interacting with women, you have to INTERACT WITH WOMEN lol

@The Awakened One
Naw man, apparently if you want to get good at MMA, you take up fixing cars and master fixing cars and then you can jump in an MMA ring and win, and it’s CRAZY INSANITY to point out that the two things don’t develop the same skills/subcomms/habits/etc lol

Like wut??

@Harrison @Via Vitae
Exactly. I love the Forever Alone crew for demonstrating what I’m saying, even though Rollo tried to dismiss them as some kind of outliers in a previous discussion. These are just the guys who’ve FOUND the site and who have the balls to publ