The Gaming Den

ubernoob wrote:Anecdote

The other night I went to a small party with a friend of mine. Didn't know a single person there besides my friend. I fell into my usual alpha male patterns that I use whenever I make a first impression. By the end of the night, two people from the social circle had been extradited because they had decided to pick fights with me. I was quite literally the life of the party.

So, from knowing nobody I became the center of attention with people falling over themselves about how cool I am and actually making a group decision to extradite two people already in the social circle simply because they crossed me.

Moral of the story: Most people love it when someone is willing to be the alpha male.

Granted, I *am* a more interesting person with better stories than everyone there, but I told all of two stories before three different people told me that I was welcome to come back any time.

/shrug/

You're so dreamy.

[Citation needed], Ubernoob. Every single "game" site I've read has been focused specifically on how to interact with women, generally on getting them to sleep with you, and in a 1-on-1 or 1-on-small group context. I've never seen any of them go into depth about how to make yourself popular in a wide, mixed-gender social circle.

In fact I'd go farther and say that's the opposite of the point. Pickup artists make their money by promising a method that will work for men who *aren't* charismatic or legitimately interesting.

..

If as you say, you yourself use "game" it shouldn't be hard for you to show us where you got the "game" you use.

Hey ubernoob: you used extradition wrong in your "my penis is sooooo big" story. It is specifically a legal term and has no connotations of exile or anything like that.

Orion wrote:Re: manipulation.

I strongly disagree that "just" wanting attention and praise makes me less wrong than someone who wanted sex. Actually, I think my desires are *more* morally questionable. I want women to find me attractive, even though I'm not going to sleep with them because I'm in a relationship. Creating desires I can't fulfill seems worse than creating desires I could.

IMO, the morality of manipulation has nothing to do with "creating desires" and everything to do with "altering behavior". If a woman finds you attractive, this has no real impact on her whatsoever...her sleeping with, otoh, can have a very large impact on her.

In short, I see "finding someone attractive" as a fairly benign thing to have happen. I see "agreeing to sleep with someone" as a potentially life-changing thing to have happen (depending on the encounter and if offspring result, regardless of the intent of either participant).

But I'm consequentialist. I think what's important is not what I'm hoping to get out of it, it's whether what I'm doing makes people's live better or worse. And when you look it at it that, I don't think I'm hurting anyone by being "devious."

You have no idea if you're hurting people or not, really. That's part of why consequentialism is crap. You cannot accurately predict with any real degree of certainty whether your actions are producing "better" or "worse" results. While sometimes you can (saving someone from a mugger, etc), in many cases, your idea of a "good" or "bad" outcome for someone else may have nothing to do with their perception of that outcome, or the objective impact of that outcome.

To use a hyperbolic example, the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing a good thing for the poor bastards they burned...they were saving their souls, after all. So from a consequentialist pov, their actions were moral, from their perspective.

Orion's Rules wrote: --when there's a visitor or newcomer in your dorm, club, or workplace, make a point of paying attention to her.

--if you notice someone being talked over or swallowed up in a noisy room, move closer to her and tell her you are listening.

--make a point of complimenting people's outfits and hairdos

--wear distinctive clothes with stories behind them. That way, when people ask about them, you have an opportunity to introduce some of your hobbies and tell stories.

--when you tell a story, leave loose threads or references to other things that happened so one story leads into another

I don't find any of those things manipulative or devious, per se. It depends upon how your actions match up with your goals.

If you compliment someone simply to make them feel good, or because you honestly believe they are smart/attractive/etc., that is a straightforward action with a straightforward motive. If, on the other hand, you compliment them in order to flatter them with the intent of getting them to do something (be it sleep with you or loan you 50 bucks), then yes, it is devious.

Further, all the things you mentioned involve YOUR behavior, or at most creating a particular environment...they do not move to the level of attempting to control or manipulate OTHER people's behavior, emotions, or thoughts.

Ubernoob wrote: My point is that game basically boils down to being more awesome than everyone else. And that can be boiled down to core principals (hint: it has).

Yeah sure, buddy. You believe that if you want.
"Awesome" is a meaningless and subjective descriptor. It does not even have a consistent definition from one person to another. Saying it can be boiled down to core principles is asinine.

Incidentally, your giant peen story is absolutely meaningless in the larger context of society. All you proved (taking your story entirely at face value) is that you can get a single room of people to act as if they like you. And we don't even know exactly why they did it...it may have been unconnected to your "alpha male" stance (which I still don't even understand what that entails).

Finally, NO, "game" absolutely is not about "being more awesome" than everybody else. If it was, it would not involve manipulating OTHER people, which is what negging is, and which is the basis of Roissy's entire philosophy.

Let's make this simple.

Uber and Vynonomous have posited that "game" is about giving women what they want and being awesome. I have posited that it is misogynistic and in denial of reality.

I present the following evidence:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen ... s-of-poon/

And that pretty much says it all. Anyone who honestly believes that load of shite is a misogynist. And in denial of reality.

I will be happy to look at any evidence they have to present for their side. And no, I don't want evidence that "it works" or anything. I want evidence that it is about:

a.) giving women what they want...this means you need to provide evidence that women really want to be made jealous, to be given less than they give you, to take a subordinate role to a man, to be constantly guessing about your motives and behavior, to be "punished swiftly and rewarded slowly", to be touched inappropriately by strangers, and all the other bullshit he suggests men should do to women.

b.) being awesome...which means you need to provide evidence that it is awesome to love yourself more than others, to be an inconsiderate asshole rather than a "polite beta", to be irrationally self-confident, to not apologize when you do something wrong, to lie regularly, and in general act like Charlie Sheen.

I know plenty of people who are laughing at Charlie Sheen right now. I don't know too many who would call him "awesome".

On looks vs. personality

Firstly, to say that that passage is misogynistic is laughable. Look at the rest of his blog if you really want to find "misogyny" - hell, look at one of the "stickied" posts. When I say men care less about personality I mean it the same way when I say that men have eyes, can see or hear - it isn't always true, but it is true most of the time. The same importance men place on physical appearance, women place on personality. Every single woman I have ever spoken to or even heard spoke has agreed that they care more about the personality than the body.

On Rampant dishonesty

I wasn't listing what would happen if you became a fawning toady - I was listing what happened if you took a man who purposefully did the opposite of what game tells you to do. Maintaining your body and mind is part and parcel of game. I didn't really feel the need to acknowledge the need that the pickup community contains bad advice and woman-haters because EVERY community has bad advice in it. I don't feel the need to warn people that Paizo and BG exist when telling them that I like the traditional gaming community.

First, define "seduce".
Second, how is this even comparable? If the man wants sex with a gorgeous woman, and she provides that, then yes...the same as if a woman wants sex with a gorgeous man, and he provides that.
That guy's argument, though, boils down to "men want sex with gorgeous chicks" and "girls want a guy to boss them around". Which is flat bullshit.

"Boss them around" is a pretty terrible method of describing it. Women(and men) have a very well programmed instinct when it comes to reproducing, right down to specific behavioural changes during ovulation. What women want is a pretty complicated question if you want to get right down to it.

If you disagree with the fact that men want to have sex with gorgeous chicks then I have no idea what planet you are living on and what strange alien race you are living with.

Orion wrote:
This guy is seriously bragging about how he can fart on chicks and they still dig him. He thinks it is admirable that he can do whatever fucked-up shit he wants, and he's got them so brainwashed they won't leave him.
I especially love the "feigned indignation"...he's so certain these chicks think the sun shines out of his ass, that he can't believe they would be HONESTLY indignant about a dude deliberately farting on them. This guy has NPD to an insane level.

I can honestly understand loving someone despite their faults...God knows I'm not perfect, and neither is my wife. But I have nothing but loathing for the idea that the "perfect mate" is one who will let you get away with whatever, and totally ignore any bullshit you pull, because your "alpha maleness" is so awesome.

As for pedophilia, hey, dude is the one who brought up "childlike demeanors" and "girlhood regression". He is flat-out saying he wants women to act like young, innocent, naive children. Probably because children are easily manipulated.

I dunno about you, but my perfect mate most definitely accepts me for who I am and loves me no matter what I do, right down in the heart. If you have loathing for that idea then I really don't know what to say.

Game is as much about manipulating women as makeup is about manipulating men. It is about recognising the behaviours and actions that maximise interest from women and doing them, while avoiding the ones that cause revulsion and sexual disinterest.

As for the reason why he wants women to act young, innocent and naive isn't because they become "easily manipulated". Its' because that sort of person is far more fun to be around than a stuffy librarian who hates the idea of fun. If you want to have an actually mature conversation you also have to throw away the pressing need to appear more mature than you actually are in order to fit in.

The sad part is, I don't think (or Roissy) are pretending. Some people honestly do believe that in every relationship, someone is on the top and someone is on the bottom, and that is the way it has to be...so you should make sure to squash everyone you can beneath your boot.

Messed up? Sure.

Equality is a myth. Somebody always has the upper hand, and it is much better to be the person with that upper hand.

3. to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage

So yeah, I see a problem with manipulation when it is dishonest, which is mostly is, IMO.

Makeup is exactly the same. Makeup is an attempt to make a woman look more fertile than she really is - it is falsifying appearance for her own advantage. As such, any relationship where the woman wore makeup when the two first met is, under your definition an excercise in manipulation. I don't think this is a very healthy way to look at a relationship.

Vnonymous wrote: Firstly, to say that that passage is misogynistic is laughable. Look at the rest of his blog if you really want to find "misogyny" - hell, look at one of the "stickied" posts.

Oh, I totally did. Complete agreement. But just because some of the shit on there is worse doesn't mean the rest of it isn't also misogynistic. That's like saying "slapping a woman isn't violent...you want to see violence, look at serial killers!".

I wasn't listing what would happen if you became a fawning toady - I was listing what happened if you took a man who purposefully did the opposite of what game tells you to do.

Again, are you familiar with false dichotomies?

I dunno about you, but my perfect mate most definitely accepts me for who I am and loves me no matter what I do, right down in the heart. If you have loathing for that idea then I really don't know what to say.

Really? Do you want your perfect mate to love you even if you are a serial killer? If you beat them or emotionally abuse them? If you cheat on them regularly? Because that's sick.

If "who you are" is an asshole, than people should not accept you for that.

Game is as much about manipulating women as makeup is about manipulating men. It is about recognising the behaviours and actions that maximise interest from women and doing them, while avoiding the ones that cause revulsion and sexual disinterest.

That's why it's crap...because there ARE NO universal behaviors and actions that maximise interest from women. Because women are not a homogenous mass who have all the same turns ons and cues. Treating women as if they were all identical is misogynistic, by the way.

As for the reason why he wants women to act young, innocent and naive isn't because they become "easily manipulated". Its' because that sort of person is far more fun to be around than a stuffy librarian who hates the idea of fun.

Jeez, you love false dichotomies, don't you?

If you want to have an actually mature conversation you also have to throw away the pressing need to appear more mature than you actually are in order to fit in.

What does trying to "appear more mature" or "fit in" have anything to do with what I said? Projecting?

Equality is a myth. Somebody always has the upper hand, and it is much better to be the person with that upper hand.

This is even sadder than wanting to be loved for farting on people. If you cannot conceive of a relationship of equals, you will never have a healthy relationship.

Makeup is exactly the same. Makeup is an attempt to make a woman look more fertile than she really is - it is falsifying appearance for her own advantage. As such, any relationship where the woman wore makeup when the two first met is, under your definition an excercise in manipulation. I don't think this is a very healthy way to look at a relationship.

There are degrees of deception. I don't consider makeup a deception, because it has a very minimal impact on what women look like (I have seen my wife many times in and out of makeup, and other women as well...seriously, it's not that different). If the woman wears a complete face mask, that would be comparable.

This is what's known as "false equivalence". It's like when you say, "that person said something mean about me, so it's totally okay for me to light their car on fire". Because both things are mean, right?

Vnonymous wrote:
Firstly, to say that that passage is misogynistic is laughable...

I don't know what you're talking about, since I neither mentioned a passage nor called anything misogynistic.

I wasn't listing what would happen if you became a fawning toady - I was listing what happened if you took a man who purposefully did the opposite of what game tells you to do... I don't feel the need to warn people that Paizo and BG exist when telling them that I like the traditional gaming community.

Actually, I do find myself telling people, "I'm a gamer, but I'm not one of *those* gamers." But more the point, that standard is bullshit. My thesis is that pickup artist techniques are bullshit. To prove my case, I don't have to show that doing the opposite is effective. I only need to show that PUA techniques are no more effective than whatever random crap people were already trying. Furthermore, I've already conceded that PUA probably does have a positive effect on your chance of getting laid, because it encourages people to get out and talk to women.

What I am saying is that none of the specifics of how they tell you to treat women matter. Just talking is enough. It's like psychotherapy. Almost every kind of therapy appears to be bullshit. They've done tests and found that for most disorders therapists doing Freudian Analysis or Cognitive-Behavioral or Client-centered methods correctly are no more effective than therapists doing them incorrectly or making it up as they went. Going to a Freudian shrink has been shown to be better than not going to a shrink, but that doesn't mean Freud isn't bullshit.

Orion wrote:
This guy is seriously bragging...

That was PoliteNewb.

Game is as much about manipulating women as makeup is about manipulating men. It is about recognising the behaviours and actions that maximise interest from women and doing them, while avoiding the ones that cause revulsion and sexual disinterest.

Well, the objectives of "game" are a little broader than that, right? Per Roissy, game's benefits include not just getting laid, but getting a devoted servant to take care of you and follow orders. Since I think we'd agree that women sometimes have sex with men whose orders they don't take, I hope you'd agree that "game" is indeed about shaping other aspects of female behavior.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonna give up on quoting for the manipulation discussion since I'm talking to both you and Newb. Vnon, I'm sympathetic to your "slippery slope" argument. A big problem I have with saying that manipulation is categorically bad is that I can't see how to define "manipulation" without including some pretty benign behaviors.

That said, I don't think makeup is the best example, because I don't think anything is really being falsified. Women wear makeup on dates. This is a known fact, nobody goes out with a woman expecting to see her ungarnished face. I'm not falsifying my cock by wearing trousers, she's not falsifying her face by wearing lipstick. We're just creating a look.

PoliteNewb,

Of course I'm trying to control other people's emotions. I want them to feel relaxed, attractive, intrigued. I'm all about controlling emotions. And I forgot to include some of the more deceptive things I do, like tell "composite" stories where I glue together several things that really happened in a shorter timeframe for the sake of the story.

Really I have trouble though because I don't have a model for what "authentic" behavior would be like. For the clothing thing, I feel that an "honest" reason to wear a piece of clothing would be because it's practical or because you look good in it. Using it as a conversation piece feels like wearing it "under false pretenses." But then again, I tend to view everything I do as some kind of manipulation, so...

Orion wrote:
Really I have trouble though because I don't have a model for what "authentic" behavior would be like.

It's a combination of two things: Not having a plan to make people like you and not giving a fuck whether people like you or not and just acting the way you want to.

Now, if you are an asshat, this will just make everyone hate you. If you are a decent person, it tends to workout okay.

btw, you comments on being nice to new people to groups and paying attention to people you think are being ignored/overlooked is good. Not for any gain to you, but because it's what any decent person does.

I don't know what you're talking about, since I neither mentioned a passage nor called anything misogynistic.

That was directed at PoliteNewb, not you.

Actually, I do find myself telling people, "I'm a gamer, but I'm not one of *those* gamers." But more the point, that standard is bullshit. My thesis is that pickup artist techniques are bullshit. To prove my case, I don't have to show that doing the opposite is effective. I only need to show that PUA techniques are no more effective than whatever random crap people were already trying. Furthermore, I've already conceded that PUA probably does have a positive effect on your chance of getting laid, because it encourages people to get out and talk to women.

What I am saying is that none of the specifics of how they tell you to treat women matter. Just talking is enough. It's like psychotherapy. Almost every kind of therapy appears to be bullshit. They've done tests and found that for most disorders therapists doing Freudian Analysis or Cognitive-Behavioral or Client-centered methods correctly are no more effective than therapists doing them incorrectly or making it up as they went. Going to a Freudian shrink has been shown to be better than not going to a shrink, but that doesn't mean Freud isn't bullshit.

This, again, is wrong. There's a hell of a lot of actual research going on with the subject, both scientific and amateur. Psychological research often ends up proving principles of game right, too. And again, game works. It really, really works - there's actual scientific research that proves that a lot of the tenets of game have a measurable effect on your success with women and in relationships - from body language affecting actual confidence to women preferring mysterious men to women preferring dark triad men etc etc etc. Game has long since left the "bullshit" category of skills.

Well, the objectives of "game" are a little broader than that, right? Per Roissy, game's benefits include not just getting laid, but getting a devoted servant to take care of you and follow orders. Since I think we'd agree that women sometimes have sex with men whose orders they don't take, I hope you'd agree that "game" is indeed about shaping other aspects of female behavior.

Getting into a relationship with a devoted woman is not like having a slave. Game, as Roissy advocates, allows you to both have one night stands and maintain healthy relationships. One of the more poignant posts on that blog was a guy posting about how reading it saved his dying marriage.

Manipulation

We've already had the manipulation discussion on this board before, with regards to charm and dominate person. There's nothing wrong with lying or deceiving someone in order to get into their pants - if a woman has sex with you because she thinks that your name being david means you are Jewish, it isn't rape or morally objectionable. Game, which consists of self improvement and behaviour modification cannot possibly fall under the definition of rape. Its' a unique sort of situation where the "product" is mostly made up of the marketing itself - if you practice game then you don't rape women's minds and make them have sex with you against their will, you make yourself irresistible. You're not culpable at all for their actions, and if you try and say that the manipulator here is responsible then you open the door for all sorts of shit - like removing women's ability to be culpable for infidelity, which is far more misogynistic than anything roissy posted.

Vnon,

I will grant that body language is important and can readily believe that somewhere in the PUA community there is useful advice about it. Won't make me retract my general statement though.

The dark triad is definitely real. We know that men who are narcisstic, machiavellian, and psychopathic have a lot of sex partners. I don't have the time to track down journal articles, so while it would be best to read actual studies, I'm not going to do that unless you link me to some. Having googled up some shitty science reporting, All I learned was the abovementioned, large number of sex partners. As such I have two questions about the dark triad:

1: Is having a large number of sex partners really a good indicator of romantic success? What if the most desirable people spend most of their time in long-term relationships, and therefore have low numbers of sex partners? In that scenario, having a large number of partners would be evidence that people are turned off by the Dark Trio. 2:Why assume it's the alpha male posturing that accounts for the discrepancy. I'm sure there are a lot of difference between neurotypicals and dark triad types. For instance, I'm certain approach a lot more women. Even under the null hypothesis that "game" has no positive or negative effect, you'd expect them to have more partners.

Honest Question Time: Which of the PUA lessons are supposed to help you emulate the dark triad? Negging, for instance, feels like the opposite. Psychopaths and machiavellians are known for appearing charming and friendly, and making you feel good. Classic abuser types start out super-sweet, not aggressively critical. Help me out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to argue with you over interpreting Roissy's descripton of his relationship, but can I assume you're agreeing that "game"'s benefits are supposed to extend beyond getting laid, to setting the tone for your non-sexual interactions with your girlfriend as well?

Vnonymous wrote:Being childlike is very different to being a child, and I'd much rather be in a relationship with a girl who was spontaneous, playful, innocent, happy and carefree than my old maths teacher.

Back in the day my maths teacher was an intelligent women with the strength of personality to keep a room full of teenage boys in line without needing to shout or threaten. Sounds vastly more attractive than anyone who could be described as childlike.

Vnonymous wrote:I dunno about you, but my perfect mate most definitely accepts me for who I am and loves me no matter what I do, right down in the heart. If you have loathing for that idea then I really don't know what to say.

This statement makes no sense. If she loves you no matter what you do, you could act like a "Pathetic beta" and be just as well off.

Unless you are saying that by being so alpha you psychologically trained her to love you no matter what you do, even if you beat her, and rape her daughter in front of her, in which case:

Hey look, brainwashing. Yeah, that's not something we decry when people do it to their kids to make them into crazy people.

Vnonymous wrote:Game is as much about manipulating women as makeup is about manipulating men. It is about recognising the behaviours and actions that maximise interest from women and doing them, while avoiding the ones that cause revulsion and sexual disinterest.

Yep, that's what game is about, but unfortunately, because there are no one set of activities that all women find universally appealing, game is instead about recognizing the behaviors and actions that maximize interest in the subset of women who are most likely to sleep with you based on how you act on a first meeting, with little to no concern for what you actually say, or what type of person you are when you aren't trying to get people to sleep with you.

Or, to quote female seduction artists: The problem with game is not that it's bad to get people to want to sleep with you, it's that Game is in such an infant stage that it only gets a specific type of person to sleep with you.

Vnonymous wrote:As for the reason why he wants women to act young, innocent and naive isn't because they become "easily manipulated". Its' because that sort of person is far more fun to be around than a stuffy librarian who hates the idea of fun.

As everyone else told you when you ignored them. young, naive, innocent and stuffy librarian are not the only types of people in the world. I greatly prefer for my girlfriend to be assertive, nerdy, and active. I'd rather if she regularly proposed sexual acts that I haven't suggested, and can hold her own in starcraft II. I'm sure other people have their own preferences, but when you are talking about how "like a child" is the only cool way for women to act, and everything else is terrible, burden of proof is on you.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

Vnonymous wrote:Being childlike is very different to being a child, and I'd much rather be in a relationship with a girl who was spontaneous, playful, innocent, happy and carefree than my old maths teacher.

Back in the day my maths teacher was an intelligent women with the strength of personality to keep a room full of teenage boys in line without needing to shout or threaten. Sounds vastly more attractive than anyone who could be described as childlike.

Lol, I know it's technically correct but "maths" is a funny word to me.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Back in the day my maths teacher was an intelligent women with the strength of personality to keep a room full of teenage boys in line without needing to shout or threaten. Sounds vastly more attractive than anyone who could be described as childlike.

Back in my day, my math teacher was a short nun who wielded a ruller. All she had to do was look and even the football players trembled in fear.

Trig still sucked, however.

I got stand up on behalf of childlike people everywhere. Insisting that all women should be childlike is, of course, sexist and stupid. But having an individual preference for childlike people is just taste. Look, I'm pretty "childlike." I way less than 140 lbs, a gamer, I stay physically active in goofy ways (I'm always doing handsprings on the sidewalk when headed somewhere and I stand on my hands while i talk to my friends), get intensely excited over my creative projects, and for some reason people love cooking for me. Also I pretty much only date women older than me. I don't think my girlfriend is some kind of monster for being with me.

I apologize for not responding promptly. I wanted to give the subject even more thought.

Vnonymous wrote:If you really want proof of this, just ask yourself how you would react if your significant other became a fawning toady, constantly asking you for forgiveness and treating you like royalty. Would you still respect him, even as he let you do no wrong and run roughshod over him, as all the while he let his body go to waste and become an unhealthy, unpopular and anti-social pariah?

Game theory seems to posit that men come in two flavors: asshole or pussy. There are shades of asshole, and shades of pussy, but there is no in between.

I find this rather disturbing because the man I want (and have) is very dominant in the things that he's good at, but he knows and acknowledges his weaknesses, and - just as importantly - he knows and acknowledges my strengths (and weaknesses). We are partners who alternate control of the relationship, not competitors fighting for it.

No, I don't want a fawning toady. Nor do I want a douchebag.

Vnonymous wrote:One of the more poignant posts on that blog was a guy posting about how reading it saved his dying marriage.

Are you speaking about this?

If so, are you interested in a woman's translation?

Vnonymous wrote:there's actual scientific research that proves that a lot of the tenets of game have a measurable effect on your success with women and in relationships

The difference, as I see it, between Game and Science is the same as Superstition and Science.

Superstition may be able to predict an event, and it may posit why that event will occur, but there's no evidence that the explanation is anything bordering correct.

Science may be able to predict an event, and it may posit why that event will occur, but it tries to find evidence to support the explanation.

Like most philosophies, Pick Up Artistry is bound to hit upon something bordering truth by sheer numbers, if nothing else. But it does so by packaging up Science in a wrapper of douchebaggery that isn't substantiated by anything but a select group of people's worldview.

But then... Psychologically speaking, we all know that the easiest and fastest way to build confidence is to put yourself in the "in" crowd - classic experiments in that are the SPE and Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes.

And since we know that confidence is more attractive than insecurity, it stands to reason that the fastest way of making insecure men into confident ones is to convince them they are part of an elite group that's better than everyone else because they have the secrets of the universe.

ubernoob wrote:
Edit: The core principal behind pickup is to be more awesome than your competition. If pickup wasn't good at that, it wouldn't sell.

That's a terrible way of looking at things. Homeopathy is a major industry.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Lol, I know it's technically correct but "maths" is a funny word to me.

Regional language differences are half the fun of English.

Game theory seems to posit that men come in two flavors: asshole or pussy. There are shades of asshole, and shades of p...

Completely false. Women have two different strategies for optimising reproductive success, strategies that work concurrently. A man should be appealing on both axes, but neglecting one of them leads to sexlessness, creepiness and cuckoldry. Neglecting the other means you just get a giant string of one night stands, which most men don't have much of a problem with.

Are you speaking about this?

If so, are you interested in a woman's translation?

Certainly. But remember that, as he said later on, he gets emails like that daily. Roissy gets a constant stream of thank yous and praise for the truths that he's revealed and the tricks that he's taught.

The difference, as I see it, between Game and Science is the same as Superstition and Science.

The difference between game and evolutionary psychology is the difference between engineering and science. Game is rigorously tested, scientifically so, and I'm willing to bet you've never met a "virtuoso" of the skill. Game shows a very, very measurable effect, and it works. It works super well. When you have hundreds (maybe thousands) of people working at something and collaborating through the internet, you can get some serious work done. The gaming den has produced better RPGS than anything WoTC or White Wolf ever put out, for an example in another field.

Hey look, brainwashing. Yeah, that's not something we decry when people do it to their kids to make them into crazy people.

Firstly, you're never going to get a woman who loves you no matter what you do if you don't use game. Sure, you can backslide all you want past a certain point, but managing a relationship is part and parcel of having a relationship. Said perfect mate wouldn't let me backslide like that either, nor would I let her slide down into unattractiveness.

As for brainwashing, you aren't doing any brainwashing. Some men can have this happen to women they haven't even met - some men inspire crazy love and devotion in women without even meeting them, and I don't think you could call that brainwashing. A lot of game works on the same principles, and the rest involves taking an active interest in and seducing the other person. Women seduce men all the time, and they're not brainwashing them. The same applies when the genders are flipped.

Mind you, Dracula, Edward Cullen, Mister Darcy and James Bond are seen as ridiculously attractive and sexually desirable by a lot of women, to the same degree - and I don't think that they brainwashed women into that state because they are fictional characters that do not exist, making the idea of them "brainwashing" anybody ridiculously stupid.

Yep, that's what game is about, but unfortunately, because there are no one set of activities that all women find universally appeal....

Is a svelte, 36-6-36 body with a fantastic face universally attractive to men? No. But is it attractive to a gigantic majority of men? You bet your ass it is. Just like there are some men who prefer fat chicks, there are some women who prefer losers. I don't think there are as many, mind, but they no doubt exist.

As for "only getting a specific type of person" - completely wrong. Game works just as well on geeky shutins(experienced this myself today) as it does hardcore party animals - A lot of the material is based on working in nightclubs and bars yes, but a lot of it is not - most of Roissy's stuff isn't, for example.

As everyone else told you when you ignored them. young, naive, innocent and stuffy librarian are not the only types of people in the world. I greatly prefer for my girlfriend to be assertive, n....

Except you were actively suggesting that I was a pedophile for finding childlike vivacity and carefree innocence attractive, which is why I proposed the opposite. Nerdy has nothing to do with what I suggested, and active technically falls under "vivacious" as well. I like assertiveness in my women too - to a point, of course.

Back in the day my maths teacher was an intelligent women with the strength of personality to keep a room full of teenage boys in line without needing to shout or threaten. Sounds vastly more attractive than anyone who could be described as childlike.

When my maths teacher left a room, somebody spat in her chair. She was so loathed that nobody in the class told her who did it, even when she put the entire class on detention. Not all teachers are created equal.

Honest Question Time: Which of the PUA lessons are supposed to help you emulate the dark triad? Negging, for instance, feels like the opposite. Psychopaths and machiavellians are known for appearing charming and friendly, and making you feel good. Classic abuser types start out super-sweet, not aggressively critical. Help me out.

Irrational self confidence, complete certainty that you are going to get with any woman you choose no matter what, maintaining a mystery about you, being physically dominant in social situations, a mastery of social encounters, complete lack of fear of rejection, etc etc. Roissy even suggests leaving hints that you've got a dark past or something violent in your activities.

I don't want to argue with you over interpreting Roissy's descripton of his relationship, but can I assume you're agreeing that "game"'s benefits are supposed to extend beyond getting laid, to setting the tone for your non-sexual interactions with your girlfriend as well?

Flip the genders - if a woman lets herself go and becomes physically unattractive, as well as standoffish and cold in the bedroom, her partner will definitely start to get second thoughts. When a man backslides into patheticness, his partner will start thinking that she can do better. Female hypergamy is real, and if you don't want to fall victim to it you have to remain the best you can possibly be.

Vnonymous wrote:Game is rigorously tested, scientifically so,

Um. What? You're gonna have to back that one up.

Vnonymous wrote:Firstly, you're never going to get a woman who loves you no matter what you do if you don't use game.

This statement is like the whole God-creating-a-rock-he-can't-lift thing.

If you game a girl and get one who loves you no matter what, than ceasing the game should result in... Nothing. She loves you no matter what.

Vnonymous wrote:Certainly. But remember that, as he said later on, he gets emails like that daily. Roissy gets a constant stream of thank yous and praise for the truths that he's revealed and the tricks that he's taught.

This example demonstrates my point perfectly. Psychology can show that X response to behavior Y happens, and Game can say "Because alpha male!" But Alpha Male is wrapping paper, not the actual science. I, for example, can explain it this way, without requiring that men be better than women, or that women be manipulative and "testy."

Roissy's Website wrote:We’ve had the following “discussion” every month for the past four years.

Before [reading this blog]:
Her: How much did you drink last night?
Me: Eh, just a few. I didn’t drink that much.

The wife wants her husband to give her an honest answer about his drinking. He evades the question by brushing her off with a vague response that screams lying.

Her: Bullshit. I could smell it on you when you came home. Even after you brushed your teeth.
Me: Seriously, I only had 2 or 3 drinks.

She points out that his answer is something you'd get at the Microsoft Help Desk - technically correct, but utterly useless. He responds with a number that may or may not be true.

Her: What if you got pulled over? There’s no way you would have passed a breath-a-lyzer.
Me: I’m 37 years old. I know my limits. I’m sure I would have passed.
Her: What if you killed some one? What if you died? How would I explain that to our children. Blah, blah blah.
Us: [Fight]

The wife is genuinely worried about her husband and doesn't understand why he treats her like she's crazy for giving a shit. She tries to mention more and more [significant] things the husband should be giving a shit about in the hope that he'll finally care. He continues to give responses indicating that he doesn't care because he just wants her to shut up. This results in a fight that has the husband arguing that she's overreacting and shrewish, and the wife arguing that he's lying and thoughtless. They are unhappy.

18 hours after discovering your blog:
Her: How much did you drink last night?
Me: Oh, I got hammered. [Buddy's name] had to drive me home.
Her: *giggle* Shut up!
Me: *smirk* Yeah, go get dressed. You need to drive me to [next town over] to get my car.
Her: *smile* Yeah, right.

I can’t believe this worked?!?

In this scenario, by directly responding to the question, the husband totally fessed up, which demonstrates to her that he's being responsible. Even the fact that he left his car at the bar and now she has to go with him to get it despite the late hour is a good thing, because at least he didn't put himself at risk of an accident or ticket or whatever.

This same technique, explained totally differently, has been employed by psychologists trying to help couples get back together (See the book: Mistakes Were made But Not By Me). The Science behind the behavior is sound, but the wrapping of male superiority is entirely unnecessary.

Vnonymous wrote:Firstly, you're never going to get a woman who loves you no matter what you do if you don't use game. Sure, you can backslide all you want past a certain point, but managing a relationship is part and parcel of having a relationship. Said perfect mate wouldn't let me backslide like that either, nor would I let her slide down into unattractiveness.

As for brainwashing, you aren't doing any brainwashing. Some men can have this happen to women they haven't even met - some men inspire crazy love and devotion in women without even meeting them, and I don't think you could call that brainwashing. A lot of game works on the same principles, and the rest involves taking an active interest in and seducing the other person. Women seduce men all the time, and they're not brainwashing them. The same applies when the genders are flipped.

Mind you, Dracula, Edward Cullen, Mister Darcy and James Bond are seen as ridiculously attractive and sexually desirable by a lot of women, to the same degree - and I don't think that they brainwashed women into that state because they are fictional characters that do not exist, making the idea of them "brainwashing" anybody ridiculously stupid.

It wouldn't kill you to fucking quote people in context. You type all this shit about brainwashing without noticing that my entire point was that either:

1) If you stop game, she will still love you, because you psychologically trained her to love you, regardless of how you act. IE, she is a dog, and you can ring the bell, and you never have to feed her.

That is definitely brainwashing, no question.

or

2) She doesn't love you no matter what you do, stop saying that, because it's not true.

Is a svelte, 36-6-36 body with a fantastic face universally attractive to men? No. But is it attractive to a gigantic majority of men? You bet your ass it is. Just like there are some men who prefer fat chicks, there are some women who prefer losers. I don't think there are as many, mind, but they no doubt exist.

As for "only getting a specific type of person" - completely wrong. Game works just as well on geeky shutins(experienced this myself today) as it does hardcore party animals - A lot of the material is based on working in nightclubs and bars yes, but a lot of it is not - most of Roissy's stuff isn't, for example.

See, there you go again, no, your personal preferences for a specific body type are not only not universal, they are not prevalent. Most men find 36 6 36 attractive, they also find 28 10 28 or whatever else attractive. Because most find women attractive. But when it comes to personality, both men and women prefer different things, and what is attractive is not terribly universal, and not prevalently one thing.

The fact that you think Game works on everyone is not surprising, you've been explicitly told that every time it doesn't work, it really worked, and she is just repressed and not giving what she wants. There are many things that we do know most women like, for example confidence, and if the only way you can show confidence is to try to convince her you are better than her, that's fine, I guess you should do that. But being a dom isn't the only way to be confident.

Except you were actively suggesting that I was a pedophile for finding childlike vivacity and carefree innocence attractive, which is why I proposed the opposite. Nerdy has nothing to do with what I suggested, and active technically falls under "vivacious" as well. I like assertiveness in my women too - to a point, of course.

So yeah, in addition to not quoting people out of context like a douchebag, you could also learn to fucking read. Specifically, the part to the left of each post that has the posters name. I never called you a pedophile, other people did. I pointed out your stupid statements are false. And no, nerdy does not fall under vivacious. Nothing about vivacious is what I am talking about. I am talking about a set of shared hobbies and beliefs, that in fact, are more prevalent in non vivacious people.

clicky
clicky #2