compiled by

YaReally Archive

Science Proves Game Works

Original Link

via Heartiste

Southern Man
on January 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Original Link


Science can’t prove anything. Science can only disprove. Our current body of scientific knowledge consists of what hasn’t yet been dis-proven. Stuff like general relativity and thermodynamics and laminar-flow aerodynamics. Even descriptions like the Standard Model, which we know is wrong but haven’t been able to formally disprove and replace, at least yet.

But this is social and behavioral studies. I won’t call it “science” because it’s not. That doesn’t mean it’s not a valid field of study. I do mean that you can’t approach social and behavioral studies with anything resembling a legitimate scientific method, so it’s not science.

Anyway, none of this means that game isn’t a valid take on human behavior. It is. As we often say here: game works, bitches. But you can’t prove that with science, any more than you can prove anything with science.

Since I’m harping about science, credentials are PhD in nuclear physics, MS in computer science. My day job is improving science literacy through education. It’s a thankless job, but some one has to try.

[Heartiste: Yes, I'm aware of the pedantic technicalities. Chalk it up to artistic license.]

  • Ripp
    on January 3, 2013 at 3:43 am
    Original Link

    We’ll call it:
    A quantified, observed reality of aggregate results that have been recorded and articulated for men to understand what male behaviors are the most efficient and effective to meet, attract, seduce and maintain relationships with women of the highest degree of beauty and fertility.

    Calling it a ‘science’ to a professional of your credentials obviously doesn’t work. Whether that label is a correct representation or not is indeed an argument that’d be interesting to explore. However I think it’s important to distinguish game as being rooted in science, and applied as an art form. But for purposes of educating others new to the material- it’s a science.

    Here’s a rhetorical: If by using scientific method we disprove that ‘beta’ behavior attracts high demand women, than doesn’t science prove that game works?

on January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Original Link

The concepts underlying seduction strategies are sound. But the popular jargon used to describe the dynamic is…. unfortunate.

To borrow a bit from Matt King, if this website’s proprietors started taking their oeuvre a bit more seriously, starting by dropping such unfortunately chosen words as “game”, “alpha/beta”, etc, maybe there wouldn’t be so much controversy.

[Heartiste: People's discomfort with shorthand terms of illumination is not my moral crisis.]

  • Ripp
    on January 3, 2013 at 3:50 am
    Original Link

    So you’re gripe is the words make you feel bad? Or you think it’s what causes “so much controversey”?

    Sure, some of the terminology could be ‘optimized’ for public appeal, or PC, or whatever.

    The taxonomy of terms that has been created and evolved are used to transfer knowledge of the subject matter from teacher to student.

    The controversey of game exists because its what I like to call “dark knowledge.” It is prone to invoke strong emotion out of anyone when discussed. It will always be controversial regardless if we sesame street words are used or not.

Georgia Boy
on January 2, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Original Link

If Mystery game becomes foundational in mainstream thought, that will be the end of its effectiveness. To the extent that most men have game, no man has game, because the dual female mating strategy commands that most men must not be given access to casual sex. Only the top 15 or 20 percent of men in attractiveness will ever have a serious shot at being players, the rest are must be starved until they submit to the family law system in hopes of getting laid. The only question is how high the jump bar is set to make that happen. Of course, game will still be necessary, because the bar will simply be higher and game knowledge will become part of what women assume any man will have. Things will never become easier for men who want to become players, they will always have to go through the non-linear, labor-intensive struggle for that next level of knowledge most other men don’t have.

  • Ripp
    on January 4, 2013 at 4:00 am
    Original Link


    The ‘effectiveness’ is a function of the students’ results-oreinted success from applying the material.

    Most men don’t have the capability or capacity to execute and apply learning process. And this won’t change. Although the popularity may continue to increase this doesn’t equate to it being diminished as an effective resource when applied.

    And the presumption that women will somehow adapt to the mystery method and this will lessen it’s effectiveness suggests you are basing your claim on a limited field experience data set.

    Game works. Mystery method, while it’s commercial success brings more critique, is an excellent resource that brings the fundamental principles of game into a format that can be understood by students starting their journey. And when applied it can facilitate a gateway to other more advanced topics.

    Women simply do not recognize a “routine” or whatever you want to call it and identify it on the spot.

    For example: “are your nails real?”. a line from mystery method. It isn’t the exact line of content, its how its delivered. And the point is that making a comment about her nails,clothes,attire or whatever is an effective tactic that exhibits a curious, interesting, aloof and challenging remark that spikes attraction from women.

    Further assuming that only men of top attractiveness (physical) have game is a notion that most beginners assert.

    Women are attracted to attitude over physical appearance.

    Mystery method is solid. And it’s effecti

on January 2, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Original Link

“”The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building, and the reason is likely because most men are naturally worse at the former. But in my experience, I see a lot of men dropping the ball during the comfort stage. “”

Calibration is vital. The haters and femininists focus on the techniques as though it’s trickery.

But the most-overlooked aspects of game in my own personal experience are “inner game” traits: what Krauser refers to as “Soft-Dominance”.

  • YaReally
    on January 3, 2013 at 12:16 am
    Original Link

    “The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building”

    If you escalate fast enough, you have to do comfort/rapport afterward to avoid ASD issues triggering regret and Buyer’s Remorse. Like the girl from the other day I escalated with super fast to sex, but after we banged I told her “Let’s cuddle” and we chilled together and got to know eachother and shot the shit for about an hour and she shared a bunch of deep comfort connection stuff about herself with me.

    If I hadn’t done that, it could’ve blown up in my face later (Buyer’s Remorse, rape accusations, just never see her again, etc.). Naturals run into this shit a lot because they don’t care about comfort/rapport, just getting the lay. But solid game where you “leave her better than you found her” and have her chasing you and coming back for more etc. involves comfort/rapport as well as Attraction.

    • Ripp
      on January 3, 2013 at 3:56 am
      Original Link

      *fist bump*
      yareally, you’re one of the few on here that actually goes out and executes. good post.


      Comfort building is so critical, and the most lengthy of the process, yet the least attended to. And regarding your experience its so true. If in a situation where sex escalates quickly- you have to establish comfort and ‘forge’ or ‘construct’ a genuine adult sexual relationship with the subject if you desire to see her again. If you dont….chances are very high her ASD hamster will get on the rationalization treadmill and obsolve herself of responsibility of her decission for sex so quickly.

      “it just happened…he took me to his place but didnt tell me”