If I could offer one piece of advice to the newly-red-pilled reader of the manosphere it would be this:
Stop listening to all the pompous fools in comment sections of manosphere blogs. If you have a question about women, go try it out on ten hot women and then see if you still have your question.
Having just scrolled through the comments thread in a recent Rollo post while eating pizza, I was sufficiently exasperated that I’m going to break my embargo on arguing against aspy gammas. There’s a larger point that needs making that is derailing some relative noobs. It all started when Rollo was kind enough to quote an old tweet of mine regarding the development of Game knowledge in order to make a point about how the progression of red pill knowledge owes a huge debt to the orginal PUAs it has become fashionable to discredit.
It’s a great post and includes a rather obvious thought experiment that nonetheless had never occurred to me:
“Now, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context…. Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.”
To translate into English: PUAs had the freedom to conduct research that social scientists could not, and thus broke new ground.
That’s an incredibly important observation and Rollo does a great job walking through exactly which areas of red pill wisdom we now take for granted that had to be earned the hard way by PUAs in the field before there was any reliable and valid data for the manosphere philosophers to ponder and construct theories from.
Now, let’s start with a few basic principles.
- Internet comment threads about Game are almost entirely a battle of awkward intellectual one-upmanship by fronters who have zero ability to score hot women themselves.
- The manosphere is rapidly becoming a knitting circle of witless feminised men and aspy gamma bullies treating Game as if it were an abstract historical concept rather than a real-life testable theory.
- You really shouldn’t be claiming authority on Game until you’ve had proven results in the field. Any dickhead can run his mouth on the internet whereas getting younger-hotter-tighter girls into bed requires actual compliance from the real world that suggests your theory works.
So the gamma fool in this case is siirtyrion (and to a much lesser extent, braggart Glenn, who is co-opted into his misunderstanding of science). The first fallacy is to misunderstand what science actually is. Despite claiming to be a scientist Siirtyrion doesn’t appear to know what science is. What it is not:
- Wearing a lab coat and handling petri dishes
- A set of framed postgrad degrees on your wall
- The length of your bookcase
- Your citations in journals
Science is an epistemology. Really, go read some Karl Popper. It is a way of knowing the world based mostly upon the principle of falsification. Additionally the two cornerstones of data collection is it must be reliable (possible to consistently collect data that reproduce the same results) and valid (it measures what it claims to measure). Let’s put that into simple examples:
- If you boil water with a thermometer in it, the temperature will show 100C at the time the water boils no matter how strong the heat source. Whether you boil it ten times or a thousand times, whether slowly on a small flame or quickly on a strong flame, it’ll always show 100C. Thus you have reliable data that water boils at 100C based on experimental evidence.
- If you boil water with a variable flame while playing Aqua’s hit Barbie Girl on repeat, the water will boil at different times during the song. Every time you boil the water, you record a different time. Thus if you first record the boiling at line four of the fifth chorus, you cannot reliably reproduce that result.
- If you measure the water temperature with a thermometer, you are getting a valid measurement of the heat. The thermometer measures what it claims to measure – temperature.
- If you instead measure it by rolling a pair of dice to bounce off the pot, that’s an invalid measurement. The numbers turned up by the dice have no connection to the phenomena under measurement.
Simple stuff. It becomes complex when applied to social science. It has long been a bugbear in the philosophy of science that natural scientists can be incredibly arrogant over their self-perceived superiority in collecting data. Partly this is because the natural world is quite orderly, predictable, mechanistic and doesn’t change much through the act of observation. The social world is far far more complex and thus the explanatory power of social science comes with all kinds of caveats. Consider the Hawthorne Effect noted when factory workers were measured operating under different lighting conditions. Both the Control and the Experimental groups improved performance, leading to a conclusion that:
“a phenomenon whereby individuals improve or modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed”
The old guard of social science knew the problems of social measurement but people from the natural sciences often bring their simplistic data collection strategies over to the social world without due regard for the inherent limitations of measuring people. This mistake is particularly bad with evo-psych majors. Just think of the obvious reality of science as it’s actually carried out in research facilities and compare it to the infield experiments of PUAs:
- Ask a bunch of grad students to sit down in a air-conditioned seminar room, pour a cup of cheap coffee, and as them about hypothetical situations and to write down answers with a pencil. Grade those papers according to your own classification system and then torture the data with tests of statistical significance.
- Dig up some old skeletons and pots from an ancient civilisation. Fit the pieces together and then interpret them in light of what scraps remain of their few written texts.
- Watch some baboons mating, discern some patterns, then imagine the primates are human and draw conclusions.
- Go hit on some actual women in real live environments, try to fuck them, then figure out what went well and what didn’t.
Just ask yourself which research strategy is more valid? Which group are getting closer to the phenomena they are trying to measure and are eliciting more accurate raw data about actual human mating? This is why Glenn’s following comment is so wrong-headed:
“Let’s say Krauser does 1000 approaches and gets laid 11 times. The only way to tell if game works is to have a non-game trained guy, with the same SMV, do 1000 approaches as well to the same girls. Tell me, do you think that guy won’t get laid at all? Siirtyrion is saying that this guy would probably do just about as well as Krauser, given similar attractiveness. If you don’t have control data like this – you aren’t doing science, period, and everything you conclude from “the data” is horseshit, like the statement that Rollo quoted from Krauser.”
His simplistic conception of the scientific method (essentially “it must be a controlled experiment” without regard for the limitations, and ignoring the same person can be tested in different time periods to measure progression) means he misses the very obvious fact that going in field is the only way to get valid data. Even if you get perfectly reliable lab data, it’s just in a lab. It’s not valid. It’s close to worthless. Glenn isn’t just throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a sign of binary thinking), he’s throwing his hands in the air in despair that such data can even be collected…. until he wants to give credence to scientists doing a much worse job of approaching the same phenomena.
The obvious answer is lost on gamma males because that’s the one thing gammas don’t ever do – hit on women and successfully fuck them. Let’s review the relevant characteristics of the gamma male:
- Constant need to posture as superior to those around him, especially per his intellect.
- Completely deluded about his low SMV rank and thus in denial.
- Always constructing elaborate theoretical structures that conveniently place him at a high SMV rank (in his own mind).
- Relating long-winded, highly-suspect, completely unsubstantiated tales of their own successes with HB8.5s.
So the existence of PUAs presents something of a dilemma for the game-denying gamma. He can’t possible argue based on real-world experience (he sucks with women and won’t risk his precious ego by hitting on them), he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, he needs to deny Game works in order to avoid admitting he’s too scared to do cold approach, yet he absolutely must prove to the world that he’s awesome. What to do?
Go look at siirtyrion’s (and glenn’s) comments to find out.
There’s a reason Tom Torero and I constantly admonish readers to go out into the field – 90% of the Game is played while standing in front of women. Without the discipline of infield feedback a small theoretical mis-step becomes a flight of fancy and eventually cascades into going completely off track into comfortable delusion. The woman is your mirror. You need compliance in your life, and when it comes to Game you can only get that by cold approach.
My own success ratios were, rather ironically, used as evidence against Game. Apparently I have a low success ratio that suggests Game doesn’t work and I got my few successes either because (i) blind luck – the numbers game or (ii) determinism – there’s a limited number of girls who would consort with a man of my SMV rank and cold approach is just flipping stones to find them.
There’s a few problems with this reading.
- My results demonstrably improved over time, every single year. In my first 1,000 approaches I didn’t get laid at all. I’ve approached maybe 400 girls this year and had sex with 19 of them.
- I’m having sex with girls who are, on average, 16 years younger than me and two points hotter. That should be impossible under the deterministic explanation. And of course you’d expect the success ratio to be low – that’s what happens when you aim high. It’s why boxers do statistically better in their tune-up fights than their title shots.
Aspy gammas don’t have the nuance or experience to read soft data – such as me knowing that it’s taking less effort to get the same girls now that I’ve improved my skills. After indulging his trolls for a while Rollo eventually correctly identified the true scam that the gammas are running:
“I’ve perused Siirtyrion’s blog and while I respect his observations and intellectualism, I can’t help but come away with the impression that he’s more on a personal crusade to discredit Game than he has any real interest in the evo-psych basis of intergender relations.”
What’s interesting is how successfully such intelligent and posturing gammas such as siirtyrion can out-frame the weak-willed ninnies of the manosphere comment sections and get them dancing to their tune. At no point are the ninnies demanding evidence that the gammas can actually pull hot women. It’s to forewarn these impressionable noobs that I’m pointing out the gamma ego-validation racket perpetuated in Game blog comment sections.
Stop acting as if scientists are the authority on seducing women. When academia disagrees with successful players, it’s the academics who are wrong. Just look at their wives.
October 21, 2014 at 11:17 pm
What the ‘scientists’ tend to overlook is the A in PUA, Artist.
Game has become much more than PUA, but the practice of the theory still needs to be exercised, and most guys, and especially scientific deniers, want formulaic reproducible results. They want a one size fits all Game that works for any man, but they always fail to account for the need of finesse, the improvisational knowledge of different contexts and how to adapt Game according to that prior experience. [I think it’s why scientism, Randist positivism and aspyness go together. Smart nerds struggle to embrace the grey areas of artistry. They want the comfort of explicit, overt and black/white answers, even when those answers are wrong. I used to struggle with it too. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 9:06 am
@Rollo. Very true.
But it’s easy to identify from commenters who is actually out there meeting girls and banging them and who isn’t. Every time I read something about “You brought her home and you didn’t fuck her!???? Your game sucks blah blah blah” I shake my head.
I met up with a girl I’m banging this week, she came over, we watched a movie and I walked her to the taxi stand. We didn’t bang. I escalated, got a strange vibe and pulled back rather than leading to something awkward. Had I listened to PUA advice at face value there’s no nuance. You have to read the signs. I’ve been out with girls and just couldn’t escalate. They were cold, weird, they responded strangely to my escalation. The model says x y z. But it leaves out that idea of reading signs….that emotional intelligence that prevents you from turning off a girl and blowing yourself out by being creepy.
I’m banging girls in their 20’s —half my age–on a consistent basis now. My success rate has improved tremendously within the last 9 months but even following the various techniques and escalation models as closely as possible there is still the dimension of dealing with a human being…and all the complexities that entails. If you’re bringing girls home and not banging them consistently, if you’re taking tons of girls out and not banging them consistently then you have to look at why.
That is where the idea of “Artist” in the PUA acronym holds true. Learn the techniques, practice them, then internalize them with a positive mindset. There’s no short-cut. [Agreed. Beginners will agonise over the kinds of questions that simply disappear once you acquire good game. Anyone with a cold approach notch count of 30+ wouldn’t even bother debating the science. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 2:23 pm
@Rollo and K
i think that game IS able to be deconstructed into a formula (otherwise you couldn’t teach it…) and it does have reproducible results (otherwise you couldn’t ‘keep score’…lol). i think the biggest issue is that gamma/aspy/game deniers are for the most part ‘observers’ and not participants… and game ABSOLUTELY requires participation…lol…
i had this problem before i was forced to choke down that red pill to save my marriage and keep my kids and my stuff. i’m slightly aspergery and before i could accept game as true (and this, even when i had a HUGE incentive to just accept red pill ideas…), i had to test it scientifically…so, i made predictions based on game and blue pill ideas (that i thought would be true…lol) and then acted in the situation and observed the results…red pill/game ALWAYS predicted the outcome…and blue pill expected outcomes were NEVER there…lol. in other words, blue pill predictions were falsified…lol. i may be aspy, but you don’t have to hit me in the head too many times before scientific results are valid…lol…
the biggest issue that i had was that in order to do that, i had to get out of my head and participate in the real world…lol…it was scary as hell and i probably wouldn’t have done that had i not been staring down the barrels of a messy divorce, and i would STILL be blue pill…now, thankfully i’m not…lol…game is only ‘testable’ if you participate in it…
and that truly is well outside the comfort zone of anybody…
October 22, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Rand wasn’t a positivist and she would have hated reductionism and scientism. Her epistemology is in line with what you are saying.
October 21, 2014 at 11:23 pm
Game denialists are deeply rooted in envy. Why would they even waste time trying to discredit you if their sex lives were great?
October 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Excellent post. Sometimes their comments on pro-Game sites really make me wonder in what world those guys live on.
Social sciences are the most difficult to encompass. Even medical science has huge variations in some fields. To give an example similar to Game – when I first encountered orthomolecular medicine after an entire lifetime of treating colds, infections etc. via the conventional method I first read the theories and the data available. Megadose vitamin therapy was supported by quite famous doctors and the literature seemed valid so I decided to give it a shot despite the contrary opinions of conventional MDs. After some initial problems with procurement of the correct working products I tested the easiest thing possible – vitamin C mega-doses at colds & sore throats. Albeit I have read about the fast reaction time it still took me by surprise to find out that such an effective therapy is available and works that well (15.000mg in first 30 minutes – sore throat gone, then took 50.000 in 24 hours for cold – no fever, no pain etc.). Since that day dozens of other persons in my environment tested those therapies with very similar results.
Now – to make the comparison to Game – without any cold approaches (in my case I did them before learning about Game formally) all the Game theory sounds like mumbo-jumbo. I could have spent the next 20 years reading the usual medical journals which strongly discourage use of any supplement mega-doses. They back it up by scientific papers (the other side too). So basically I could have spent my lifetime just immersed in theory and maybe in some half-assed dabbling trying once or twice 500mg vit. C on a cold, which would not be effective. Then I would announce that orthomolecular medicine does not work and be done with it.
The same is true with guys who either do not try Game or give half-hearted attempts, guys who do not even have Naturals (unconsciously competent) in their vicinity (which can be problematic, since many Naturals are quite good-looking and give those guys the wrong impression. In any case they are stuck in theory-land and their feet never touch the ground of reality. The funny thing is when guys with massive pre-formal seduction experience encounter formal Game teachings, they instantly realize what they could improve themselves. 100% of those friends of mine instantly accepted Game and reading Krauser’s books was like going through their past dates and approaches in their heads – they all realized what they could do better in the future. There was not even a shred of doubt that this stuff works.
And by the way – scientific methods of Game could be designed with thousands of expert PUAs, beginning guys and Game deniers hitting the streets and clubs worldwide – all equipped with recorders and being filmed. The girls and the responses studiously assessed and compiled. Over time and with tremendous resources you could get very exact scientific statistical data, but I don’t think that such a study will be financed any time soon in our current environment. Instead the US has spent almost 500.000$ on finding out why fat teenage girls are having trouble finding dates or why Lesbians are fat (4 mio. $ for that study). This really shows you all you need to know about the current social science climate in our feminized fucked up world.
PUAs are actually via their own experience compiling and developing Game worldwide – the network works so well, because guys base their Game on the data of others. Some guys breach new frontiers or specialize while others parrot stuff until a talented guy comes along and pushes Game knowledge forward again. That’s about as scientific as we can get for now. [This was my experience when I read my first Game book – The Lay Guide. Although I had only slept with 16 girls my whole life, that tiny experience was enough to compare to the advice to realise the book did a great job of explaining my wins and losses. I think that’s why experienced players tend to be most enthusiastic about Daygame Mastery. They are savvy enough to absorb the subtleties, and confident enough of their own skill to match their insights against my own. It’s only the approach-avoidant noobs who think it belongs in the same universe as Johnny Berba or Simple PickUp. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 1:07 am
Thanks K, great stuff! Aspy gammas, join me: https://gammaknittingcircle.wordpress.com/
October 22, 2014 at 1:41 am
“I’m having sex with girls who are, on average, 16 years younger than me and two points hotter.”
And this is the main fucking (literally) point.
The comment section is also filled with mental masturbators claiming “she showed IOIs i cudda fucked her if i wanted, but… ” and yet I think most that’s BS.
I doubt S would ever even say the word “fuck” in conversation with an 18-25yo woman.
October 22, 2014 at 2:02 am
Fantastic post, easily the best I have read on this subject. Just as the old adage says “those who can, do. Those who can’t, post whiny comments on the internet.” Updated for the 21st century.
October 22, 2014 at 4:24 am
That’s my main beef with Roissy: his obsession with proving game to work with ‘scientific studies’ is as convincing as the daily avalanche of ‘studies’ on nutrition. He should stick to just pointing to the obvious: game is like music; the more you play the more fun you will have. [To be fair, Heartiste always presents studies with the frame of “finally scientists have realised what players figured out years ago”. He’s not positioning science above Game, it’s more like “no shit, sherlock” amused mastery. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 7:04 am
“The social world is far far more complex and thus the explanatory power of social science comes with all kinds of caveats. Consider the Hawthorne Effect”
October 22, 2014 at 8:11 am
It’s crazy how much science (especially evo-psych) ignores that the dimension of human subjectivity/ human experience has its own rules and explanatory power. For example, even saying something like ‘we are protecting our egos’ is based in this latter dimension… we don’t have a widely accepted framework for how that could be true… what is an ego? what is ‘protecting’ it? but it obviously points to something we all experience, and there’s a strong basis for it from observation of child development. It’s a totally different dimension than ‘science’ / evo-psych, yet it still offers useful explanations. The ‘objectivity of subjectivity’. Lots of current thinkers on this, from John Searle to Slavoj Zizek.
October 22, 2014 at 11:35 am
“The whole point of Game is to score girls younger and hotter than you.” – Where did you and Tom T. get this from? Did you guys make this up? This thinking is flawed and irritates me when I hear it. I’d agree it’s the panacea of game, but it’s not the whole point of game.
So if I’m a good looking 20 year old and I fuck a 25 year old celebrity or model who has high social value, that’ s not game and/or there’s no point? If I’m 30 and I fuck a hot 33 year old with a boyfriend or a husband and she hits the gym a few times a week, that’s not game and/or there’s no point. I HIGHLY disagree.
Game is having the skill to be able to seduce, fuck, and satisfy what your dick tells you it wants to fuck. (DNA tug as you call it.) I’ve fucked women as hot, not as hot, hotter, older, younger, and the same age. Close to 400 at this point. (There’s my credibility on the subject.) Most required some kind of game or I wouldn’t have been able to fuck them. For you to tell me that the ones I’ve fucked that weren’t younger and hotter than me didn’t require game and didn’t matter, it’s insulting. [You write like a woman. “it’s insulting” and paying attention to a girl’s status is feminised. You’re welcome to disagree but please do so in a more masculine tone. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 12:42 pm
I agree with you to some extent. I think the reason Krauser uses the ‘younger – tighter – hotter’ standard is to weed out people who are pulling girls based on their looks, not their game. Good looking guys pull girls 1 – 2 points below them, then use this as evidence that what they do works. Often these people preach game denialism. They say, I pulled these girls without game, therefore game is bullshit. Other guys see their results and buy into this. Trouble is, guys not as good looking as them can’t learn from this because they won’t be able to replicate their results. ‘Younger – tighter – hotter’ standard ensures the pull is not based on looks alone, so the guy doing this *must* be using game, and so he’s game advice is likely to be correct. [This is true. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 3:49 pm
@betapua The “younger hotter tighter” has become my mantra for that same reason: I’m twice the age of the girls i’m banging. I can’t be pulling them because I’m good looking. The girls I’m pulling could find a younger dude or would be turned off by a dude who is a few years younger than their dads.
I like that there is science backing this up. But the science is no substitute for the field-experience.
I’m sometimes surprised that a certain thing I say or do produces positive results when it may have been dissed on boards.
One example is a girl I am banging asked: “What is our relationship?” Game boards usually suggest being vague: “I’m dating around” kind of thing.
But I tried something different and found it produced a positive result. My response was “We’re lovers”…
I don’t know why this worked on two occasions. So it’s not backed up by “science”. two results don’t make it valid. But the fact it worked for me is something for dudes gaming chicks facing this question to try out.
October 22, 2014 at 8:25 pm
I was showing respect.. Is “kiss my ass” more masculine to you? [You were a first-time commentor disagreeing in a belligerent tone. What did you expect? K.]
October 23, 2014 at 2:27 pm
I agree. Just because a girl is about your age and level attractiveness doesn’t mean she’s just going to hop into bed with you without using any game. The Krauser-Torero definition of game is something to aspire to but it isn’t the definition of game.
October 22, 2014 at 1:03 pm
It is pretty obvious to me that guys with great game get better results with women than guys with no / poor game. I can’t prove this in some double blind scientific study on a sample size large enough to be statistically significant. Any such study would be massive in scale and probably impossible to realistically perform.
I do however have my own experiences. I’ve met loads of PUAs of different skill levels. A combination of looks and skills clearly determine success rate. There’s the assertion that it’s all about volume of approaches. A numbers game. If someone did 1000 approaches they’d get krauser’s results. This isn’t true. I really believe it’s possible for a guy to approach 1,000 women hotter than him and NOT get laid once if he has really really poor game. An average blue pill chode who is a 6 in looks with ok social skills but only blue pill beta game could approach 100+ HB8s+ and not get laid. People need to take this into account when looking at krauser’s results. They massively beat the norm.
I am a case in point. I don’t believe Krauser is any better looking than me. I’m about 7 years younger than him. Probably roughly comparable socio – economic status. This year I did around 200 day game approaches. These approaches were done on exactly the same streets Krauser did his day game apprenticeship on. My result was just 1 lay and she was younger than me, but not hotter. Si my 1 in 200 vs Krauser’s 1 in 20. Some people may say, “Sample size not big enough / you didn’t approach the same exact girls’. This is true, but let’s face it a 10x difference is a big deal. Something’s up. I’m convinced as I need to be that the difference is game.
Waiting for something to be scientifically proven is dumb. Human’s would never have formed modern society, or even discovered society if we worked like that. I default to believing what my experience shows me till science proves otherwise. If you work any other way you’re crippling yourself. [Agreed. I went 1 in 1,000 for my first year in Game. I’m 1 in 20 now but I think that’s aided by a run of good luck in spring. I’m probably hitting 1 in 35 right now as illness blights me. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“PUAs had the freedom to conduct research that the social scientists could not.”
Considering the narro limits that academia considers to be kosher, that’s not difficult.
October 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Hey Nick, love your blog. I’ve learned to always listen to people older than yourself, and you’re a role model for guys trying to live life the way you do. It seems like most of your recent posts have been about putting disrespectful losers in their place, and you’re absolutely right about how you lay it out. However, as someone less experienced, it can be tough (literally impossible) to know where you really stand. Like you say, these “gammas” are disillusioned. Could you lend me some insight on how the experience-skill relationship advances over time?
I earned my manhood 2 years ago (I’m 21) and only a few months ago got into the habit of cold approaching, though I still only stick to warm/casually convenient approaches for the most part. I’m good looking/attractive/bold/whatever enough that most girls I meet will hook instantly, yet my problem is that mild yet significant anxiety stops me from approaching 15-20 girls an outing. I’m working on setting the ego aside to just do it, but it’s easier to take easy pickings and I’ve been doing about 3 a day. I can hit on a girl sitting next to me on the subway bench NP but get scared to do it down Main street. I’m a natural once I say hello (I’ve been with enough girls that I know how to run my process and am good at it) but with only –250 approaches or so of lifetime experience it’s hard to know where I really stand and what expectations I should have.
Right now my thinking is that I’m capable/confident enough to be successful long as I get enough inputs, which has been the main hurdle. What did you do to get past that mental roadblock and rack up approaches? Is it a question of chipping away at anxiety until it becomes second nature as I’m doing now or is there some thought process that helps you let go and just do it with extreme efficiency? [First thing – don’t obsess. You’re 21 so you shouldn’t have the same expectations of mental discipline and right action that a 39yr old guy has. I had to grow and develop my discipline, as you will over time. That’s part of maturing so don’t beat yourself up for still being basically a kid / young man. Second – consider Tom Torero’s youtube channel. He’s rather more patient with noobs than I am and better at advising them. Third – buy my Balls Deep book when it’s released next month. It’ll be cheaper than my other material and it’s specifically written to help guys through their first 1,000 sets and inner game by helping them relate to how I did it. K.]
October 30, 2014 at 11:53 am
Nick, by any have chance, have you a protip to develop one self-discipline? Not necessarily related to pickup but as a broad life skill. [No. Try Danger & Play. K.]
October 22, 2014 at 5:04 pm
I noticed a lot of this in a popular London based seduction forum that I used to frequent a few years ago.
The problem with them and with most commenters is that it tends to develop into a clan or a small circle of cronies backing each other up on their bullshit despite the things they say having any form credibility.
You can obviously vet the comments but the problem is, it tends to get underestimated. A lot of avid readers do read comments and plays a huge part in forming an overall impression of what the site and community is about and can easily misguide someone down a wrong path with wrong information.
It’s partly the reason why I’ve refused to start a manosphere or game blog as I still feel I haven’t yet reached a level where I can confidently talk about it with 100% authority.
And also because there are simply far too many variables in Game that prevent it from being accurate since not all of us are the same and will have our own individual challenges and experiences.
So what might be a problem for me might not be an issue for someone else. Seduction is an art and not a Science.
October 22, 2014 at 10:49 pm
To each their own.
I find “game” makes things so confusing. When I was “gaming”, I had WORSE results. I did the qualifying, “creating attraction” through jokes and made sure my “set” was done in chronological order to trigger her “attraction switches” As soon I became NORMAL, my results went through the roof.
I actually had a PUA analyze an infield I did at the mall which was a quick close. It was like a a minute tops and I did like 6 things wrong apparently lol. It was so funny to me. I have another infield recorded where I talk to a girl about braces and teeth and I ended up banging her a couple days later. “Game wise” it was terrible!
I just think there’s no such thing as game that overcome lack of sexual attraction. Would I be correct Krauser? I find the community places too much emphasis on the verbal aspect of things. Flirting physically is way more effective.
Just curious as to why “daygame” is considered such a great lay resource these days? I mean no doubting it can be effective but ANYONE will get blown out a lot- regardless of looks or “game”. I personally think Tinder and bars are way more effective, girls seem way more DTF! [Show me pictures of you and the girls you fuck. If you think Tinder is effective, you’re pulling well below your potential. K.]
October 23, 2014 at 1:27 am
Ok. By email or how? Not a prob at all [krauser (at) rocksolidgame (dot) co (dot) uk]
October 23, 2014 at 5:32 am
This looks like you didn’t get beyond level 1 type game – “what do I say”. The structures are used to help you to tap into proper subcommunications, sexual intensity and vibe and then reach those even without structure. Properly learned and internalised game techniques and mindsets combined with SMV work – Krauser, Torero, Jabba – work for anyone on any level, in my opinion.
October 22, 2014 at 11:32 pm
It is absolutely correct that game of expert kind is necessary to fuck girls on whom, according to society, their self-perception and yourself, you’ve no other advantage than your masculinity (eg, if they are richer, more beautiful, younger, taller, fitter….not more stupid nor less socially aware than you – what you’ve is only courage, experience, charisma, game and balls).
Don’t give a fuck about self-righteous gammas, Krauser…you’re a very intelligent, very black-hearted and hard-working boy who reacted remarkably smartly to divorce and who made some very interesting , big-size, ground-breaking experimentation divulged stunningly well with modest means. I still find it hard to understand why you fell for marriage even if with a 10, though. But I guess it is the learning curve. )) [Benefit of hindsight, my wife was an 8 at her SMV peak. Noobs always overrate their closes. K.]
October 23, 2014 at 12:46 am
Maybe it wasn’t her to be reassessed to 8 but you to have grown to a 9 ))).
I try to look for the reaction that most boys have in front of the girl, to assess their perceived SMV.
If a majority of boys can’t stop looking, smile like pussies, beg attention, offer to pay, want to approach but are intimidated, offer gifts, obey like slaves etc, then I think I must rate the girl at least 8 or 9. However the same girls seen messy in the morning or without perfect makeup placed on face, probably lose 1 point or 2… This is very true for Russian girls in particular, but not only. They even apologize for not looking their best. )
Contrarily, when a man can leave such girls behind, saying them NO when they beg for yes, or treat them as normal persons, that’s a good meter of his own value, sexually or otherwise. Abundance mindset + emotional control, that’s when a 10 that you feel you couldn’t replace becomes an 8 out of many you can find everyday. You want it that way and in the end it will be that way.
October 23, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Why the wait on releasing Balls Deep get it up on Lulu already? 🙂 [I’m considering a launch event soon. K.]
October 25, 2014 at 11:30 am
“In my first 1,000 approaches I didn’t get laid at all.”
You mentioned in one of your first posts that by the 4 month mark you had “Daygame 183 opens / 56 closes”. Did you not lose faith at 1000 with that kind of number/f-close ratio?
October 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)
Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle.
Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose.
Unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science.
Buy our product and you will become the Ultimate Shadow Cad. No woman will be able to resist you. This is the image that some commercial Pick-Up-Artists are basically selling the gullible dudes who buy their products, attend their bootcamps, etc.
This isn’t so much a community as it is a marketing gimmick. It’s a bullshit title used to sell books and programs.
These books seek to “redefine what it really means to be an alpha male.” Really, it’s not just a bunch of cock-sure, arrogant and self-entitled assholes. It’s a gentleman. A leader. A strong and worthy man blah, blah, blah. They’re putting lipstick on a pig, trying to convince you that you’re either the leader of the pack, or you’re a beta who won’t get what you deserve in this life, and they pretty it up with all kinds of nice-sounding terminology and definitions, but at its core the idea of being an alpha male is bogus.
It’s built around the myth of the alpha male wolf, which is allegedly the strongest, most dominant member of the pack. He is the leader, the one who gets all the bitches (literally) and keeps the other males in their place. Or something.
Sir Tyrion Blog [Dream on. Tyrion is an angry gamma fool dripping in pussy-repellant. You’ve bought his schtick because you’d rather intellectualise why something is impossible than learn from the people who’ve proven it can be done. K.]
Pingback: Pickup vs. Wissenschaft | Alles Evolution
November 8, 2014 at 1:57 am
Thats not intellectualizing, thats rationalizing,
Intellectualizing does not deny the reality of the situation it just strips it of its emotional content in order to be able to look at it clearly and deal with it in the abstract.
It is a defense mechanism, yes, but not nearly as crude or inmature as rationalization.
I dont know if that was aspie gamma and I dont care.
November 8, 2014 at 2:07 am
Its not misoginy if its true, check your privi… um philoginy.
No, only the second tier women do that in my experience, the creme of the crop nails one of them down. That may be circular reasoning due to my definition of top tier.
They do hit the wall, my penis tells me so and so does yours, why even try to deny that while talking to men who have the exact same gut reactions as you do?
Ja, ja, alpha not really alpha. yadda, yadda, yadda, well some men get laid more often then others, call that what you will.
Now, we could try to find things they have in common…. and find they share certain behaviors…. which usually come from shared mindsets…… and then we could give it a name…….
And then someone like you would show up and tell us why its all bullshit, because it, whatever “it” is. really means something else..
December 18, 2014 at 11:51 am
So did ‘mitchel’ sent you the pics? What do you think of them? Should we be getting advice from him? [Yes. But it was in confidence. K.]
Pingback: The Truth About Mystery Method