On May 09 2012 16:44 sluggaslamoo wrote: If I go for a high value girl, I have to be a little more cunning. The wrong approach and you can easily be blown out of your set before you open your mouth "Hey um" -> "I don't want to talk to you!". IOI's become a lot more important in calibration (which I guess why you neglect them, because IOI's don't mean shit if you go for below a 7), micro-managing value starts to become important (again worthless if below a 7), negging, witty remarks, stories, flirting is more situational, you gotta act less like you are hitting on them, holding your frame is harder because the hotter they are, the better they can be at finding a way to smash your confidence, etc.
Do you even like women? From what you describe you seem to more regard them as opponents/competitors.
I'm with you in regard to: very attractive, intelligent women don't go out alone. They either go with friends or boyfriends. So yes, to get their attention you might have to be a bit of a clown (which I can see Evo being great at with his little skits in response to rejection/total lack of self worth?). Does playing the clown and being an entertainer get you the woman? Nah. It'll just get you some attention from the attractive woman. Maybe you can join their group and get to know them that way, you might as well be the subtle guy who befriends them otherwise. But I guess if you want to be the great entertainer at the club, go for it. But come to terms with just being a good time to them and their friends. Personally I'm no clown. I prefer going out with my friends, laugh, have fun, if I met someone, through mutual friends or just talking at the bar, so be it. But again, in order to that you have to be a social person, build up a social circle, have, make and maintain friendships etc.
At the end of the day it comes to down to what a woman wants in the 18-28 age bracket, it's a buyers market mostly and the women are buying. After 30 the tides turn, men become more settled, have money, status and suddenly the man is the eligible bachelor and women are left to chase. Women go out to clubs and bars to hook up and meet men and play. Find those women if casual sex is what you want. But don't succumb to the illusion that you can talk a model-lookalike away from her boyfriend, who quite frankly is just better than you in every respect. That is why "choose your target demographics is the best advice that can be administered.
You can't win a woman's affection/heart by making funny conversation. You gotta actually be an attractive guy. If you're not, work on that, instead of wasting your time with neg and other PUA theory.
Finally, what is it with asian guys obsession with white blonde women? Why do asian men regard white tall blonde women to have higher value than a short asian woman? Explain it to me.
I really think pop culture has hurt asian men the most of all in regard to piling on insecurities. there's half a billion women out there in your age group, all of them unique, a lot of them beautiful, most of them sexually charged. What are you doing walking around saying "oh, you look like you're from sweden". That's pathetic. You're making your own life harder by holding onto some belief that blonde women are somehow better.
Are you aware of the fact that no one takes your opinions seriously? Unless you post a picture of yourself with a hot girl, just stop posting here, you're making a fool of yourself.
On May 09 2012 22:10 RageBot wrote: Are you aware of the fact that no one takes your opinions seriously? Unless you post a picture of yourself with a hot girl, just stop posting here, you're making a fool of yourself.
Dayum, if you say so Boy, it must be so, eh? Let me think a little about posting my image on the internet for a bunch of dudes to drool over my woman... hmmmhmn. I'll get back to you on that, hang tight. You sure offering some valuable opinions...
On May 09 2012 20:51 r.Evo wrote: It's a great toolset once youre solid at pickup and want to refine yourself further in some specific areas, but not that great for beginners. For your personal life it can help you a lot, but you have to be aware of the nutcases you might meet in the process. =P
Also big thing to note is that everything NLP teaches comes from observing what happens between people when they communicate, it just sometimes looks like "magic" (hint: Mr Brown) because it's mostly about unconscious things no one ever asks questions about.
NLP is a joke. It's based on pseudoscience that was debunked decades ago. It "works" just like hypnosis does: it uses social compliance and trickery to allow you to manipulate easily suggestible people, and only those gullible people. NLP is about as effective as bad Internet ads that put random words in ALL CAPS to try to get you to buy into a scam.
If NLP works on a girl, then you should be embarassed from a Darwninan perspective to be having sex with someone that gullible, and you didn't need to study a pseudoscience to seduce her anyway. Stick to studying real game concepts that are actually validated by science.
The BJJ or Judo dojos I've trained at all use traditional acupuncture points, they just mostly aren't aware of it and the result is more among "if you do it that way at that point it will hurt more". Like I'm not even debating whether or not acupuncture has medical applications or not, but considering since literally all of the major meridians have their points over soft tissue which hurts more than if you do something directly on a muscle/bone there is no point talking about whether certain points hurt more or not.
If you call concepts like "Anchoring" or "Reframing" "a joke" then quite frankly you have no clue at all. Both are things that occur all the time in daily life, the only difference in NLP is that it aims to use those consciously for therapeutic or other purposes, but more of that below.
On May 09 2012 20:51 r.Evo wrote: As a "formal" education I got my NLP master from kikidan and I'm obviously using most of the stuff on a daily basis, both personally and for my coachings.
The big, big problem with NLP is that there really is no good common educational standard when it comes to what material is solid or not. This in return results in a lot of bullshit that's being spread around for profit. Personally I recommend doublechecking what material you're reading and finding out if it's really applicable in practice. For me NLP is an awesome and great toolkit, the people I met who see it as a way of life or religion are, while sometimes competent, usually not the people you want to learn the general mindset from. I would recommend making an official course at one point (pick a trainer/organisation you like. I wouldn't say that a "formal" training is really required unless you want to turn it into a job, personally I learned most of it during practice and a lot of the concepts I learned from NLP were more like "Oh, I already know that but I would have never explained it that way" so I kinda did it more to get that piece of paper. =P
If it's so useful that you use it on a daily basis, and if most of the core concepts are more of a "oh, I never would have said it that way, now I'm consciously aware of that I can apply it" realization than a "Wow, I'd never thought of that", could you give a very brief description of a couple of the core concepts, with an example or two as to its potential use.
Here's my attempt at what I'm asking for, using my own interpretation of the videos I linked above.
Anchoring: Making an emphatic gesture while saying something, so that that concept/emotion/idea becomes linked with the gesture. That gesture can later be used to recall the concept/emotion/idea. Especially note, later use of the gestures can be linked togethor to create a chain of ideas (a transition). For example, Derren indicates with his right hand to the right side when he says "Now" and right hand to the left side when he says "Past" (1:58), and later recalls this to indicate (5:30) the movement of this "line" the girl heard in the past, to what he is about to say (... they are "the same") Also can be applied with contact with a person, for example touching someone on the arm right as they burst into laughter associates your touch with the positive feelings they just experienced.
Close enough?
For anchoring, you're thinking too complex. As the very basis anchoring means that you link some kind of emotion, state or even any reaction in general, to some kind of sensory impression.
This can mean that you smell the smell of fresh backed cookies and are reminded of christmas during your childhood, it can mean hearing a certain song and connecting it to a certain person. Any time you have that connection it is equal to what NLP talks about when it's about anchoring. (And that's why someone who charges in and says "LOLOLOL ITS ALL BULLSHIT" can be proven wrong rather easily.)
To create a good anchor you want the following things: -A clear emotion, as strong as possible. -A clear anchor, as distinguishable as possible.
To set it you basically do nothing more but trigger the anchor whenever you see the emotion/state pop up. Do that long enough and the emotion/state will pop up just from triggering the anchor.
If I say "OH MY GOD YOU KILLED KENNY" and you think of "YOU BASTARDS" it's a classic example of a TV show setting up an anchor. Comedians have entire programs built around this concept, most advertisement is based upon it. Good advertisement doesn't advertise a product, it advertises a lifestyle and emotions you want to have - by buying the product. (Think www.apple.com or www.originalskateboards.com)
The past/present example is a great one which shows why it is useful to be aware of those things. In this case it is less about his personal anchor though, but about general perception. In most cases when we see graphs which involve timelines they move from left to right from past to future. By indicating "past" with your right and "future" with your left it shows "correct" for the other person. A maybe more useful example about presentations would be to (let's say you're trying to push a certain procedure or product) explain disadvantages by pointing to the left side of your body, advantages to your right side and in your conclusion you move so that the product is to your right side again.
Aight. Back to pickup. Personally, from my experience I can't tell you if the "I should touch her when she laughts because then she'll associate positive emotions with me touching her" is true or not. Why? Because the best situations for kino are at those high points anyway. Like, it would just not make sense to do it the other way around and I have never tried it.
A great example for the use of anchors would be something I used to do all the time in a certain club which was literally filled with bodybuilders. Now, usually within the first minutes of a set (and it was hard enough for me to hook in that location) one of those fucking oak trees would try to waltz over my set. So what I did was this: Early in the set I made sure that the girl knows what I think about those guys. Maybe along the lines of "blabla my first time here and... ohmygod, is it always full of these bodybuilding oak trees?", if something like that gets me a laugh I might go a step further and impersonate the stiff movement (pull up shoulders, stiffen back, wiggle around from side to side). If at that point I already have built enough attraction/compliance she will swallow that perspective. Now, if one of those guys walks in and starts talking to her I just have to make the same movement in a less obvious fashion, the girl will burst out laughing and blow the guy out before he can even get into the set. Without me needing to do any intervention. =P
I would say a great use for anchors for beginners would be if they have trouble building e.g. inside jokes. It might be some impersonation type of stuff, mocking the music when she seems annoyed by it (and then repeating it when the music stays shitty), inciting a boxing fight whenever she says something you don't like, etc. etc. ... I would say for a typical set of mine I build about 5-10 with her that she will understand but no one else in the room will get within the first 20 minutes or so. Creating unconventional inside jokes or stories is like a major, major "rapport bomb".
Edit against the "lolol acupuncture is all bullshit as well" random statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GERAC tl;dr: THE worldwide biggest study ever done on acupuncture resulted in the German health insurances paying for acupuncture to treat lower back and knee pain. Gouvernments don't do that without sufficient data.
The BJJ or Judo dojos I've trained at all use traditional acupuncture points, they just mostly aren't aware of it and the result is more among "if you do it that way at that point it will hurt more". Like I'm not even debating whether or not acupuncture has medical applications or not, but considering since literally all of the major meridians have their points over soft tissue which hurts more than if you do something directly on a muscle/bone there is no point talking about whether certain points hurt more or not.
So, because some acupuncture are also pressure points or located over soft tissue, you think that learning acupuncture will help you be a better MMA fighter? That's backwards thinking. Knowing an acupuncture point won't immediately translate into "oh, it will hurt him if I hit/poke him there", there's just a coicidental correlation that totally practically useless.
Never has acupuncture-related knowledge been brought up during my muay thai training. Any relation between the two is coincidental (first and foremost because acupuncture is complete nonsense).
Slug:
Maybe my credibility in this area. I'm more likely to listen to an asian person (or me) on this than a white person. But if there is a study to prove me wrong then please let me know, I'd be happy to concede that point.
The statement came across as telling me why I like something, do I like it because of pop culture, or because its hard-wired?
I would say my interest in certain kinds of women has almost nothing to do with pop-culture, just like it doesn't determine what foods I like. Not to sound racist, but I will never ever be attracted to african-american women, but TV has a lot of african-american women.
Tall and blonde is seen as universally attractive, because they are both attractive traits in general, which we are all hard-wired to be attracted to. I'm pretty sure if we got Britney Spears and warped her back into the 18th century, she would also be hot there too. A lot of people think that women have gotten better looking as time has gone on. In the renaissance era, maybe that was the best they had.
I think pop culture follows what people like, pop culture doesn't force people to like it.
This is the painting "The Birth of Venus" (warning, naked renaissance lady in spoilers) + Show Spoiler +
This painting was a painting of the most beautiful woman (venus, goddess of love) imaginable to men at the time. Notice how, although not fat (although renaissance paintings had plenty of straight-up fat girls presented as beautiful, this one is simply more classically greek inspired than most), this girl would definitely be considered a bit chubby for being considered the most beautiful girl imaginable.
If you think that's because the renaissance lacked skinny girls, you're clueless. The vast majority of the population still suffered from malnutrition. Infact, it's primarily thought that voluptuousness women were considered more beautiful precisely because in that day and age, plumpness was a sign of material wealth (the opposite is generally true today). If you could afford to eat enough food to add some cushion, you were probably not of the lower classes.
Likewise in Korea (I live in Korea, and Koreans themselves say this), a lot of the focus on having "white skin" in korea harps back to preconceptions about preconceived wealth/class. Tanned girls traditionally were "country farm girls" and white skinned girls were rich city girls that didn't need to toil in the field (This mentality isn't unique to Korea, most of East Asia has similar thoughts in regards to city and farm girls). The huge influx of western media and western models obviously re-enforced this mentality.
Not surprisingly, most western men who come to Korea don't really care about about Korean girl's skin color at all when judging their "hotness". Most of them are actually really turned off by the girls that pour on disgusting amounts (to them) of white skin powder (nothing is more unnerving to a western guy than seeing a "white line" near a women's chest where she stops apply whitening cream). Many of them even prefer the more tanned Korean girls, in a similar fashion to how many American men have a preference for tanned Latina girls, or how many western women are willing to pay for a tan at tanning salons.
Do you honestly think that Koreans simply have some sort of "white skin is attractive" gene that non-asians don't have?
Yes, obviously genes play a huge role in how we percieve the other sex to be attractive, but to think that is the sole determinate of attractiveness is to be completely ignorant of history, fashion, and genetics.
On an individual level I feel early childhood experiences play a key role in what we find sexually attractive later in life. For instance myself, I had a few asian nannies, and even those that were european happened to be petite and brunette (as I gather from pictures). My brother on the other hand had this large irish nanny who was called Fat Pat, apparently she had huge knockers (I wasn't around yet) betwixt whom she would smother my poor little brother. He now goes through life trying to re-enact that sensation. That's pretty much how Freud felt about it too.
On May 09 2012 22:10 RageBot wrote: Are you aware of the fact that no one takes your opinions seriously? Unless you post a picture of yourself with a hot girl, just stop posting here, you're making a fool of yourself.
Dayum, if you say so Boy, it must be so, eh? Let me think a little about posting my image on the internet for a bunch of dudes to drool over my woman... hmmmhmn. I'll get back to you on that, hang tight. You sure offering some valuable opinions...
No. I don't, however, i'm not acting in a condecending way towards people, giving them fake advice, telling them what to become without actually telling them how to get there, not trying to back up my opinion by any sort of validation while telling others that their sources are bad.
On May 10 2012 02:25 squattincassanova wrote: r.Evo,
You gotta learn brevity bro. Short concise statements that are to the point are more impactful.
Its the difference between going up to a woman and saying:
"You're fucking sexy"
vs
"I just want to say that um, I think that you are aesthetically pleasing and good to look at from the male perspective"
Depends.
Good luck going up to a girl in the middle of her friends doing that and not getting kicked out. You're confusing eloquence with being a pussy.
On another note, my girlfriend just pointed out that the picture of the girl you posted has nothing to do with the girl in the video you posted. They are not the same persons. And I'm very inclined to agree.
#1. Any girl with that ass/those legs will have the top worn in the second picture at her hip. It simply won't fit that low. Actually worse. A fat girl like the first one won't even wear such a top unless she has no clue about what she looks like. #2. The second girl is skinny. Note the region around her neck, face and left arm. There is no way in hell that she has the legs of the first girl. #3. Rewatch the original video. ( ). Look at how that girl walks. It's like a fucking duck. The second picture shows a cute, slim girl who knows that she's good looking and invests in herself. Such a girl doesn't walk like that.
Why exactly do you film a girl (note that you at first claimed you didn't film her face to "not expose her" because she is "that hot") then post a picture of her anyway (exposing her in process) when someone calls you out for her not being hot?
Do you honestly need to lie about which girls you're going out with just to look better here?
video is sometimes unflattering like that, probably a question of formating and inertia and some mean ass doppler effect :D I stick to my guns, he can do better. But honestly, who cares, as long as she has a good heart.
Hey Ragebot..what's fake advice then?
I thought I was giving ace advice, I already said I'm massively rad. Ask me anything... I'm the love doctor.
On May 10 2012 00:32 r.Evo wrote: The BJJ or Judo dojos I've trained at all use traditional acupuncture points, they just mostly aren't aware of it and the result is more among "if you do it that way at that point it will hurt more". Like I'm not even debating whether or not acupuncture has medical applications or not, but considering since literally all of the major meridians have their points over soft tissue which hurts more than if you do something directly on a muscle/bone there is no point talking about whether certain points hurt more or not.
No, they don't. Mechanical leverage and joint locks don't have anything to do with acupuncture's meridians, as there are no physiological correlates to those meridians. Some meridians happen to be over pressure points, but some aren't; it's just a matter of having so many points that by sheer statistical volume some of them seem related to physiologically fragile areas. The idea that acupuncture has anything to do with martial arts comes from the same Eastern fetish that produced bullshit like "death touches" and modern "ninjitsu" schools.
Using acupuncture as any sort of framework for understanding grappling is horrendously flawed. You increase your understanding of grappling far better by studying exercise biology, physiology, and medicine. Y'know... actual science.
For the record, I've trained at grappling for over a decade, studied exercise biology as practical knowledge for martial arts, and grew up with traditional Chinese medicine (as a Chinese-American whose primary babysitter was a very traiditonal grandmother). And on top of that, I've found that there are valuable aspects of traditional medicine that can be understood within the context of modern medical science. But at the end of the day, basing your understanding of the human body on meridians and qi makes about as much sense as basing your understanding on the idea that bodies are made of fire, water, earth, and air.
On May 10 2012 00:32 r.Evo wrote: If you call concepts like "Anchoring" or "Reframing" "a joke" then quite frankly you have no clue at all. Both are things that occur all the time in daily life, the only difference in NLP is that it aims to use those consciously for therapeutic or other purposes, but more of that below.
Simply put, if you want to learn about social psychology and body language, NLP is the wrong framework to do so from. The classical Greek elements system gets some conclusions right (for the wrong reasons), but that doesn't mean it makes a good foundation for understanding chemistry and physics.
On May 10 2012 00:32 r.Evo wrote: The BJJ or Judo dojos I've trained at all use traditional acupuncture points, they just mostly aren't aware of it and the result is more among "if you do it that way at that point it will hurt more". Like I'm not even debating whether or not acupuncture has medical applications or not, but considering since literally all of the major meridians have their points over soft tissue which hurts more than if you do something directly on a muscle/bone there is no point talking about whether certain points hurt more or not.
No, they don't. Mechanical leverage and joint locks don't have anything to do with acupuncture's meridians, as there are no physiological correlates to those meridians. Some meridians happen to be over pressure points, but some aren't; it's just a matter of having so many points that by sheer statistical volume some of them seem related to physiologically fragile areas. The idea that acupuncture has anything to do with martial arts comes from the same Eastern fetish that produced bullshit like "death touches" and modern "ninjitsu" schools.
Using acupuncture as any sort of framework for understanding grappling is horrendously flawed. You increase your understanding of grappling far better by studying exercise biology, physiology, and medicine. Y'know... actual science.
For the record, I've trained at grappling for over a decade, studied exercise biology as practical knowledge for martial arts, and grew up with traditional Chinese medicine (as a Chinese-American whose primary babysitter was a very traiditonal grandmother). And on top of that, I've found that there are valuable aspects of traditional medicine that can be understood within the context of modern medical science. But at the end of the day, basing your understanding of the human body on meridians and qi makes about as much sense as basing your understanding on the idea that bodies are made of fire, water, earth, and air.
On May 10 2012 00:32 r.Evo wrote: If you call concepts like "Anchoring" or "Reframing" "a joke" then quite frankly you have no clue at all. Both are things that occur all the time in daily life, the only difference in NLP is that it aims to use those consciously for therapeutic or other purposes, but more of that below.
Simply put, if you want to learn about social psychology and body language, NLP is the wrong framework to do so from. The classical Greek elements system gets some conclusions right (for the wrong reasons), but that doesn't mean it makes a good foundation for understanding chemistry and physics.
If you would read more what I've said more carefully is that something like knowledge about acupuncture adds icing on the cake, it's no substitute for fundamental skills.
Before you start with "lololol all bullshit and no science again" I'll just link you actual data again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GERAC - like... it's kind of hard to argue with the data from that study. I'm pretty sure there's more out there, but this is what actually altered health insurance policy in Germany and is therefore rather significant. Not to mention there are lots of doctors (yes, the real ones) who practice acupuncture successfully.
As for "NLP only gets a few things right", I'll just type a list of stuff that's all out there just as easy in your daily life as my examples above about anchoring: -Calibration for all sensual systems -Mirroring, Pacing/Leading -Listening comprehension in terms of the real intended content, not the said words. ("Aktives Zuhören" in German, fuck no idea what the English expression is) -The meta model and all of its questioning techniques -VAKO Hypnosis / Seperator State / Statebreaks -Ecology checks during therapy/coaching -Anchoring -Environmental anchoring analysis -Reframing -Submodalities and working with them -Evoking, mirroring and altering when it comes to personal strategies
From that list the stuff where I'd personally say "Mhmm.. yeah, I'm not 100% behind it" are the last two points. I've never had huge issues when it comes to working with submodalities but they didn't help me in all cases either. Same for the "classic" strategy work.
For ALL of the other points it is no problem at all to come up with examples from your daily life, from pickup and/or coaching where those things are applicable and present you with more options. Why is it all that common? Because the basis of NLP isn't to create something new, it's to find models that describe things that someone else already worked out.
Personally from my work and from working with medical and psychological personal I find the NLP version of those models to be among the most easy to learn, understand and applicable. By going out and saying "It's all bullshit" you're just showcasing your ignorance about the topic since it's full of common and useful stuff.
Now, are there nutcases out there who fly above the ground and have sex with pink unicorns on a daily basis? Sure. Just like in any field out there, science or not. Using your brain and finding out which stuff is useful for you personally and which isn't makes more sense than just condemning it from the get-go.
PS: It would make way more sense if you'd actually provide a frame in which I can explain stuff you apparently don't know about than saying "lol all bullshit", especially after someone asks about it, I provide a detailed example of a certain concept and no one even doubts that it's correct so far.
On May 10 2012 07:11 Spiffeh wrote: This thread just gets weirder and weirder. It's no wonder why people think PUA's are creepy.
agreed. I showed my girlfriend this thread, she lol'd. She also got pissed because she feels like there are a shit ton of users objectifying women. (which in my opinion, is equally despicable as racism)
The term "pick up artist" itself is creepy. People literally trying to make an art of "picking up" women. Why can't we have a psychological discussion about attraction and dating? oh, wait.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=105334 yes I shamelessly plugged my thead :D
In my thread some "PUAs" approached me and tried to get me to join their website (you know, for $10.99/mo, no thanks tho)
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: Before you start with "lololol all bullshit and no science again" I'll just link you actual data again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GERAC - like... it's kind of hard to argue with the data from that study. I'm pretty sure there's more out there, but this is what actually altered health insurance policy in Germany and is therefore rather significant. Not to mention there are lots of doctors (yes, the real ones) who practice acupuncture successfully.
I recommend you read your own link. It states almost word-for-word what I said in my last post: "there was no significant difference in efficacy between real and sham acupuncture."
Sticking needles into your skin clearly has an effect (though that's most likely due to the placebo effect), but the fact that sham acupuncture works just as well means that acupuncture's foundational concepts of meridians and qi are completely debunked. At best, acupuncture practitioners simply discovered that needles in the skin relieves pain, and made up pseudoscience to explain the phenomenon.
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: Personally from my work and from working with medical and psychological personal I find the NLP version of those models to be among the most easy to learn, understand and applicable.
Just because a theory is easier to grasp doesn't mean it's right. Creationism is far easier to learn than evolution, but obviously one is a made up explanation and the other is actual science.
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: It would make way more sense if you'd actually provide a frame in which I can explain stuff you apparently don't know about than saying "lol all bullshit", especially after someone asks about it, I provide a detailed example of a certain concept and no one even doubts that it's correct so far.
Your explanation isn't necessary. NLP was a big part of the seduction community's early work, courtesy of Ross Jeffries' speed seduction, and I've studied his material as well as the work he based it upon (Bandler & Grinder's NLP "science"). But at the same time, I've also studied legitimate scientific work in social and psychological fields, so I understand that while many of the concepts have some value, the foundational underpinnings are often completely wrong.
Like acupuncture, Jeffries simply came upon some anecdotal experiences/results, and he used NLP to (errorenously) explain them. It's no different from some of the really flawed interpretations of evo psych expounded by some PUAs.
From both of these, it's apparent that you buy into pseudoscience far too easily. You need to look for empirical data to support your actual explanations, not merely the fact that the actual techniques seem to work and the explanation sounds plausible. Just because the technique works doesn't mean that it works for the reasons you think it does, and when you try to build from that flawed knowledge you're only handicapping yourself in the long run.
Okay. I was going to write a quite detailed post about how wrong some of you are about certain matters such as science, emotions, or more contemporaneous, acupuncture. However, after contemplating the thought for a few moments I realised that the subject is too big for analysis here, and especially in this thread. Add the late of the hours here to the equation, and we have a no go.
Nonetheless, I still think that you are somewhat misinformed or deluded to consider acupuncture as 'effective' in anything else besides providing you with a nice placebo effect for a rather unreasonable price. And since I dislike arguing without providing a hint of evidence ('lol the government supports it/there are many practitioners' does not really count), here is a rather informative and up to date article regarding acupuncture.
In any case, going to bed. I hope I wasn't too vague (kind of tired)
PS: I hear there are people practicing exorcism and chiropractic, as well as that governments subsidize twelve-step programs. Surely, they must work!
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: Before you start with "lololol all bullshit and no science again" I'll just link you actual data again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GERAC - like... it's kind of hard to argue with the data from that study. I'm pretty sure there's more out there, but this is what actually altered health insurance policy in Germany and is therefore rather significant. Not to mention there are lots of doctors (yes, the real ones) who practice acupuncture successfully.
I reecommend you read your own link. It states almost word-for-word what I said in my last post: "there was no significant difference in efficacy between real and sham acupuncture."
Sticking needles into your skin clearly has an effect (though that's most likely due to the placebo effect), but the fact that sham acupuncture works just as well means that acupuncture's foundational concepts of meridians and qi are completely debunked. At best, acupuncture practitioners simply discovered that needles in the skin relieves pain, and made up pseudoscience to explain the phenomenon.
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: Personally from my work and from working with medical and psychological personal I find the NLP version of those models to be among the most easy to learn, understand and applicable.
Just because a theory is easier to grasp doesn't mean it's right. Creationism is far easier to learn than evolution, but obviously one is a made up explanation and the other is actual science.
On May 10 2012 07:08 r.Evo wrote: It would make way more sense if you'd actually provide a frame in which I can explain stuff you apparently don't know about than saying "lol all bullshit", especially after someone asks about it, I provide a detailed example of a certain concept and no one even doubts that it's correct so far.
Your explanation isn't necessary. NLP was a big part of the seduction community's early work, courtsey of Ross Jeffries' speed seduction, and I've studied his material as well as the work he based it upon (Bandler & Grinder's NLP "science"). But at the same time, I've also studied legitimate scientific work in social and psychological fields, so I understand that while many of the concepts have some value, the foundational underpinnings are often completely wrong.
Like acupuncture, Jeffries simply came upon some actual evidence and results, and he used NLP to (errorenously) explain it. It's no different from some of the really flawed interpretations of evo psych expounded by some PUAs.
From both of these, it's apparent that you buy into pseudoscience far too easily. You need to look for empirical data to support your actual explanations, not merely the fact that the actual techniques seem to work and the explanation sounds plausible. Just because the technique works doesn't mean that it works for the reasons you think it does, and when you try to build from that flawed knowledge you're only handicapping yourself in the long run.
The sentence you quoted for proving "lol, see, acupunture is all bullshit" starts with "acupuncture worked as well as or even better than conventional therapy" -_-
Primary outcome was met by 47.6% of patients in the real acupuncture group, 44.2% of patients in the sham acupuncture group, and 27.4% of patients in the conventional therapy group.
In the end, observed success rates were 53.1% for the acupuncture group, 51.0% for the sham acupuncture group, and 29.1% for the standard therapy group.
Read: The acupuncture was MORE effective than the conventional therapy. Which, by definition, can't be due to a placebo effect. Basically what the study says is "What we think of as real and fake accunpcture worked, we don't know why, but it did. Since however both worked better than the conventional therapy we'll introduce it as official treatment."
I also stated explicitly earlier that I think what's going on under "speed seduction" is absolutely overhyped. However, since you're somehow making a link between the concept of NLP and the concept of acupuncture, which both have completely different backgrounds, there is no big point argueing. I'll gladly keep answering questions people have about the subject, but argueing with someone who "studied it intensively" and thinks of it as something with no value is completely pointless.
Feel free to point me to non-NLP explanations of the concepts I listed above which will achieve better results in practice and I'm all ear. This would also mean you're a better psychologist than most people I worked with. Good luck.
What I care about for my personal life and as a coach is this stuff: a) Is something I can repeatedly use with different people and get the desired result. b) Is something I can teach to others who can achieve their desired result. c) Is something for which I can't find a more effective way to achieve the desired result.
Sadly, NLP offers a boatload of concepts and techniques which enable me to achieve all of the above. Also sadly most people I know who achieve similar results (hint: with a medical/psyhological background) can relate very closely to the explanations offered by NLP and usually end up modelling their explanations after it.
What you're doing here is saying "Is there scientific background as to why it makes sense to not buy a woman free drinks all evening if you want to get her into bed?" - no, there fucking isn't. Were there ever solid studies as to why or even IF what NLP calls "phobia cures" work? No. When it comes to that psychology is still stuck with either graduated behavioural therapy or "flooding", the solutions offered by NLP aren't even considered for various reasons.
However, have I, as a comparatively newbish NLP master with just a few years of practice, been able to help clients who were called "untreatable" for their phobias? Yup. Dozens.
Ignore everything about NLP. Its one of the last things you want to learn.
Taking an improv comedy class or a dance class is going to do 1000x more for your game than NLP. The fact r.EVO is writing PAGES on NLP is more proof of his keyboard jockeyness. Its easy to be sitting in front of a computer spending 30 minutes to formulate what theoretically works and what doesn't. But throw him in front of a group of girls in a real set, and his NLP theorycraft knowledge goes out the window.
On May 10 2012 03:44 r.Evo wrote: On another note, my girlfriend just pointed out that the picture of the girl you posted has nothing to do with the girl in the video you posted. They are not the same persons. And I'm very inclined to agree.
#1. Any girl with that ass/those legs will have the top worn in the second picture at her hip. It simply won't fit that low. Actually worse. A fat girl like the first one won't even wear such a top unless she has no clue about what she looks like. #2. The second girl is skinny. Note the region around her neck, face and left arm. There is no way in hell that she has the legs of the first girl. #3. Rewatch the original video. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u0KF3avEjuw ). Look at how that girl walks. It's like a fucking duck. The second picture shows a cute, slim girl who knows that she's good looking and invests in herself. Such a girl doesn't walk like that.
Why exactly do you film a girl (note that you at first claimed you didn't film her face to "not expose her" because she is "that hot") then post a picture of her anyway (exposing her in process) when someone calls you out for her not being hot?
Do you honestly need to lie about which girls you're going out with just to look better here?
Self proclaimed "coach" spends half an hour analyzing my video. Don't you have anything better to do? Clearly you never dated a Latina. They have a short expiration date. They eat a burrito and it goes straight to the ass. Her picture was from last summer but yeah, its the same girl.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.frontiernet.net/~imaging/v_paint.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VXZtJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pJv0r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://twenty-somethingtravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/haters_gonna_hate.gif)
