|
No matter which way you cut it, I am not at all convinced that PUA's are people interested in some morally acceptable form of self-improvement. The practice is obviously self-oriented and engages in exploitative methods. Even though the end result may be overcoming a fear, or improving your own level of confidence, there are unacceptable means, and other more wholesome ways to achieve the same ends. I'm sorry but I just don't see how a mature and rational person can justify 'playing the game' like that.
No need to apologize. Its your opinion and your entitled to your own opinions unapologetically.
My posts are about shedding some lights that PUA could (and should) be more than just dudes giving regurgitated memorized pickup lines and negs (aka insulting her to lower her value).
Agreed for about 5 sentences.
Then he just started rambling about PUA bullshit.
Women who are worth your time aren't putting up hoops as traps, they're not going to abandon you because you break down emotionally, they're not going to abandon you because you snap and yell at them, and your job certainly isn't to "keep her in check"
What the fuck is this shit man! Billy Joel gives better advice about trust as far as I'm concerned.
As I said, the guy is harsher than he should be (as you pointed out). Though there are many points that are valid such as:
-if she is going out with her girlfriends on a night out, don't act like an insecure jealous man.
-realize that when she takes a shit load of time putting on makeup that she does it for you. Let her be a woman.
-when she is fucking pissed and cannot control her own emotions, you should keep your own cool and emotions together.
etc... etc...
Anyway, cheers to all.
|
On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows.
Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing.
Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity.
And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating.
|
On June 03 2011 03:40 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:23 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:15 Reason.SC2 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:01 ShcShc wrote:On June 03 2011 02:53 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 02:40 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:35 Elegance wrote:
Problem with 90% of guys is that they put women at a high value (and more importantly, higher value than themselves). That's why they can't get girls or become providers or orbiters. Whatever you wanna call them. What is the "problem" you're trying to address? That they don't get laid enough? Some people don't find any detriment to their life by putting other people at a high value. you seriously dont see a problem with feeling inferior and not good enough? First, insecurity is a normal human emotion. Second, and more importantly, you've tied it directly to getting laid. If you have low self esteem, don't practice feigning confidence so you can get women. Find stuff that makes you feel good and improves your life, like going to the gym, reading books, volunteering, etc. It's ironic that people claim "normal" people put women on a pedestal, when all the positive things those books describe can and arguably should be done without the thought of getting a mate crossing your mind. It's the PUA community that advocates self improvement to attain another person. Here's my 2 cents. You're advocating them to get a life, which I agree with. Going to the gym, volunteer and getting hobbies is something everybody should do. But even if you do that, it doesn't mean you'l conquer your fears of approaching women. What is the best way to conquer those fears? Approach more women and see them eye-to-eye (same value as you are). At the beginning, you think: "Ah shit, I'l look stupid. I don't want to get embarrassed in front of my friends blah blah". That's where you see her too much of a false Godesse; you see her with too much value. At the beginning, it will definitely feel like fake confidence. As you practice more and more, you'l overcome it and it will become a real confidence. Eventually you see her eye-to-eye and just have fun. Its like being scared of heights. I'm deathly scared of heights and when I went skydiving, I was fucking scared to death. You try to be brave, but you can't help to be scared. As you progress, you become more habituated. Its about realizing that your worst fears are essentially imagined. They're not real. And when you realize that the fears that you had before are imaginary, you become a better and more confident person...and you end up living a much better life. The problem is that you're using your interaction with other human beings as a tool for yourself, which imo is wrong, especially given that you are almost in all situations presenting the situation to the other person in such a light that suggests the purpose of the interaction is the exact opposite. It is dishonest and an immature approach to interaction with other people. Yeah, a lot of you will tell me that its about improving yourself as a person by getting over your fears of talking to women, social anxiety, etc... but there are a lot more healthy ways to do this other than engaging in 'peacocking', willfully trying to manipulate the subconscious thoughts/feelings of women you meet in order to meet your ends of either getting laid or feeling desired by the opposite sex. No matter which way you cut it, I am not at all convinced that PUA's are people interested in some morally acceptable form of self-improvement. The practice is obviously self-oriented and engages in exploitative methods. Even though the end result may be overcoming a fear, or improving your own level of confidence, there are unacceptable means, and other more wholesome ways to achieve the same ends. I'm sorry but I just don't see how a mature and rational person can justify 'playing the game' like that. you're talking about deceiving people and peacocking. what universe do you live on? i thought that fad already died out. pick up isnt even pick up anymore. its evolved into just general "be confident" "have fun socializing with new people" "love yourself" "express yourself and who you are truly" "be happy always" what you think of when you think about the community, i bet this is what you're thinking of: + Show Spoiler +when i think of the community, i think of laughing, socializing, having fun and partying + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_6Xqspn-o
this guy fucking wears a toy reindeer on his groin. is this what you think of as tactics and techniques? no. it isnt. thats just who he is and hes having fun with it. this is what I think of when i think of the community The inner game, aka "natural" methodology you are talking about has deep problems. you see, it started as a sort of new-age post-PUA movement, with former mystery method & ross jeffries etc followers trying to branch out and employing a different way of getting women. Now the naturals CONSCIOUSLY rejected practical methodology, substituting it with tthe inner game/vibe/egoless approach. Now those guys didnt understand it, but they in fact didnt reject the methodology of the technical outer game approach, they only forgot about it. Subconsciously they kept employing the same techniques. And that led to the failure of its advancement. You see, the newcomers, whom the now inner game/vibe/egoless guys tried to teach, struggled to grasp their conscepts. While what they were taught sounded good in theory, they couldnt employ it to get numbers and f-closes. That was the beginning of the end. While the large community of inner game freaks keeps hanging out at boards likes sosuave, rsdn, etc and discussing the abstract philosophical concepts, their practical approaches have stagnated. The outer game community keeps innovating game, successfully teaching newcomers to the field with PRACTICAL skills, moving the ball forward. And so it is, that as in other fields in life, the guys who just have "fun", forget about methodology, and concentrate on attitude instead of substance, succeed only in deluding themselves in their success, as that is all activity is about.
if you're trying to say natural, unscripted game doesnt work then you are wrong. if you are saying rsd is unsuccessful then you are wrong.
|
On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows.
World-class trolling. Excellent work. Please keep it up :D
|
On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating.
Let's see you do better than the authors of these articles since you know better. These guys have studied and field tested what they believed in and had success. You can't just "deny" an entire industry because it doesnt sound "socially logical"
besides this is an argument that will never end because both parties will rationalize every little point to make it sound in their favor so we all might as well stop.
|
On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation.
|
On June 03 2011 03:40 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:23 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:15 Reason.SC2 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:01 ShcShc wrote:On June 03 2011 02:53 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 02:40 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:35 Elegance wrote:
Problem with 90% of guys is that they put women at a high value (and more importantly, higher value than themselves). That's why they can't get girls or become providers or orbiters. Whatever you wanna call them. What is the "problem" you're trying to address? That they don't get laid enough? Some people don't find any detriment to their life by putting other people at a high value. you seriously dont see a problem with feeling inferior and not good enough? First, insecurity is a normal human emotion. Second, and more importantly, you've tied it directly to getting laid. If you have low self esteem, don't practice feigning confidence so you can get women. Find stuff that makes you feel good and improves your life, like going to the gym, reading books, volunteering, etc. It's ironic that people claim "normal" people put women on a pedestal, when all the positive things those books describe can and arguably should be done without the thought of getting a mate crossing your mind. It's the PUA community that advocates self improvement to attain another person. Here's my 2 cents. You're advocating them to get a life, which I agree with. Going to the gym, volunteer and getting hobbies is something everybody should do. But even if you do that, it doesn't mean you'l conquer your fears of approaching women. What is the best way to conquer those fears? Approach more women and see them eye-to-eye (same value as you are). At the beginning, you think: "Ah shit, I'l look stupid. I don't want to get embarrassed in front of my friends blah blah". That's where you see her too much of a false Godesse; you see her with too much value. At the beginning, it will definitely feel like fake confidence. As you practice more and more, you'l overcome it and it will become a real confidence. Eventually you see her eye-to-eye and just have fun. Its like being scared of heights. I'm deathly scared of heights and when I went skydiving, I was fucking scared to death. You try to be brave, but you can't help to be scared. As you progress, you become more habituated. Its about realizing that your worst fears are essentially imagined. They're not real. And when you realize that the fears that you had before are imaginary, you become a better and more confident person...and you end up living a much better life. The problem is that you're using your interaction with other human beings as a tool for yourself, which imo is wrong, especially given that you are almost in all situations presenting the situation to the other person in such a light that suggests the purpose of the interaction is the exact opposite. It is dishonest and an immature approach to interaction with other people. Yeah, a lot of you will tell me that its about improving yourself as a person by getting over your fears of talking to women, social anxiety, etc... but there are a lot more healthy ways to do this other than engaging in 'peacocking', willfully trying to manipulate the subconscious thoughts/feelings of women you meet in order to meet your ends of either getting laid or feeling desired by the opposite sex. No matter which way you cut it, I am not at all convinced that PUA's are people interested in some morally acceptable form of self-improvement. The practice is obviously self-oriented and engages in exploitative methods. Even though the end result may be overcoming a fear, or improving your own level of confidence, there are unacceptable means, and other more wholesome ways to achieve the same ends. I'm sorry but I just don't see how a mature and rational person can justify 'playing the game' like that. you're talking about deceiving people and peacocking. what universe do you live on? i thought that fad already died out. pick up isnt even pick up anymore. its evolved into just general "be confident" "have fun socializing with new people" "love yourself" "express yourself and who you are truly" "be happy always" what you think of when you think about the community, i bet this is what you're thinking of: + Show Spoiler +when i think of the community, i think of laughing, socializing, having fun and partying + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_6Xqspn-o
this guy fucking wears a toy reindeer on his groin. is this what you think of as tactics and techniques? no. it isnt. thats just who he is and hes having fun with it. this is what I think of when i think of the community And so it is, that as in other fields in life, the guys who just have "fun", forget about methodology, and concentrate on attitude instead of substance, succeed only in deluding themselves in their success, as that is all activity is about.
'Game' is the opposite of substance...
|
I agree, free will is a description of the complexity of human interaction. Incomplete information on the set of rules predicting behavior creates the appearance of free will. If the complete set of rules governing a person's behavior can be ascertained, the illusion dissipates.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Just a question to people who have read books on PUA, is there any scientific evidence to support it? Specifically, are there scientific studies published in respectable journals supporting it? From what I've read (mostly on TL), PUA seems to be based on evolutionary psychology which, at its best, is borderline scientific (most claims aren't falsifiable). If this is the case, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the books are ineffective. Giving people confidence in their ability to attract the opposite sex and telling them its ok to approach lots of women can only increase their chances to get laid. I'm just wondering if the actual methods they employ help.
|
On June 03 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation.
Your reading comprehension skills are beyond repair.
I was merely saying that I don't want to hear any non-free will retort, since it's self-defeating (if we don't have free will, what's the point...). (and given your prior arguments it seemed like something you might bring up)
|
On June 03 2011 03:53 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:40 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:23 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:15 Reason.SC2 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:01 ShcShc wrote:On June 03 2011 02:53 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 02:40 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:35 Elegance wrote:
Problem with 90% of guys is that they put women at a high value (and more importantly, higher value than themselves). That's why they can't get girls or become providers or orbiters. Whatever you wanna call them. What is the "problem" you're trying to address? That they don't get laid enough? Some people don't find any detriment to their life by putting other people at a high value. you seriously dont see a problem with feeling inferior and not good enough? First, insecurity is a normal human emotion. Second, and more importantly, you've tied it directly to getting laid. If you have low self esteem, don't practice feigning confidence so you can get women. Find stuff that makes you feel good and improves your life, like going to the gym, reading books, volunteering, etc. It's ironic that people claim "normal" people put women on a pedestal, when all the positive things those books describe can and arguably should be done without the thought of getting a mate crossing your mind. It's the PUA community that advocates self improvement to attain another person. Here's my 2 cents. You're advocating them to get a life, which I agree with. Going to the gym, volunteer and getting hobbies is something everybody should do. But even if you do that, it doesn't mean you'l conquer your fears of approaching women. What is the best way to conquer those fears? Approach more women and see them eye-to-eye (same value as you are). At the beginning, you think: "Ah shit, I'l look stupid. I don't want to get embarrassed in front of my friends blah blah". That's where you see her too much of a false Godesse; you see her with too much value. At the beginning, it will definitely feel like fake confidence. As you practice more and more, you'l overcome it and it will become a real confidence. Eventually you see her eye-to-eye and just have fun. Its like being scared of heights. I'm deathly scared of heights and when I went skydiving, I was fucking scared to death. You try to be brave, but you can't help to be scared. As you progress, you become more habituated. Its about realizing that your worst fears are essentially imagined. They're not real. And when you realize that the fears that you had before are imaginary, you become a better and more confident person...and you end up living a much better life. The problem is that you're using your interaction with other human beings as a tool for yourself, which imo is wrong, especially given that you are almost in all situations presenting the situation to the other person in such a light that suggests the purpose of the interaction is the exact opposite. It is dishonest and an immature approach to interaction with other people. Yeah, a lot of you will tell me that its about improving yourself as a person by getting over your fears of talking to women, social anxiety, etc... but there are a lot more healthy ways to do this other than engaging in 'peacocking', willfully trying to manipulate the subconscious thoughts/feelings of women you meet in order to meet your ends of either getting laid or feeling desired by the opposite sex. No matter which way you cut it, I am not at all convinced that PUA's are people interested in some morally acceptable form of self-improvement. The practice is obviously self-oriented and engages in exploitative methods. Even though the end result may be overcoming a fear, or improving your own level of confidence, there are unacceptable means, and other more wholesome ways to achieve the same ends. I'm sorry but I just don't see how a mature and rational person can justify 'playing the game' like that. you're talking about deceiving people and peacocking. what universe do you live on? i thought that fad already died out. pick up isnt even pick up anymore. its evolved into just general "be confident" "have fun socializing with new people" "love yourself" "express yourself and who you are truly" "be happy always" what you think of when you think about the community, i bet this is what you're thinking of: + Show Spoiler +when i think of the community, i think of laughing, socializing, having fun and partying + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_6Xqspn-o
this guy fucking wears a toy reindeer on his groin. is this what you think of as tactics and techniques? no. it isnt. thats just who he is and hes having fun with it. this is what I think of when i think of the community The inner game, aka "natural" methodology you are talking about has deep problems. you see, it started as a sort of new-age post-PUA movement, with former mystery method & ross jeffries etc followers trying to branch out and employing a different way of getting women. Now the naturals CONSCIOUSLY rejected practical methodology, substituting it with tthe inner game/vibe/egoless approach. Now those guys didnt understand it, but they in fact didnt reject the methodology of the technical outer game approach, they only forgot about it. Subconsciously they kept employing the same techniques. And that led to the failure of its advancement. You see, the newcomers, whom the now inner game/vibe/egoless guys tried to teach, struggled to grasp their conscepts. While what they were taught sounded good in theory, they couldnt employ it to get numbers and f-closes. That was the beginning of the end. While the large community of inner game freaks keeps hanging out at boards likes sosuave, rsdn, etc and discussing the abstract philosophical concepts, their practical approaches have stagnated. The outer game community keeps innovating game, successfully teaching newcomers to the field with PRACTICAL skills, moving the ball forward. And so it is, that as in other fields in life, the guys who just have "fun", forget about methodology, and concentrate on attitude instead of substance, succeed only in deluding themselves in their success, as that is all activity is about. if you're trying to say natural, unscripted game doesnt work then you are wrong. if you are saying rsd is unsuccessful then you are wrong. You misunderstand. The natural method guys are good because of the reasons i noted. Their failure lies in their dogma, preventing fast progression of newcomers.
Ill tell you what,try teaching a new comer.
A teach them the natural game abstract concepts
B teach them practical mystery method & NLP
the B guy will advance faster, PERIOD.
|
On June 03 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation.
haha this is fucking gold. GOLD JERRY GOLD.
|
On June 03 2011 04:09 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:53 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:40 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:23 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:15 Reason.SC2 wrote:On June 03 2011 03:01 ShcShc wrote:On June 03 2011 02:53 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 billyX333 wrote:On June 03 2011 02:40 Jibba wrote:On June 03 2011 02:35 Elegance wrote:
Problem with 90% of guys is that they put women at a high value (and more importantly, higher value than themselves). That's why they can't get girls or become providers or orbiters. Whatever you wanna call them. What is the "problem" you're trying to address? That they don't get laid enough? Some people don't find any detriment to their life by putting other people at a high value. you seriously dont see a problem with feeling inferior and not good enough? First, insecurity is a normal human emotion. Second, and more importantly, you've tied it directly to getting laid. If you have low self esteem, don't practice feigning confidence so you can get women. Find stuff that makes you feel good and improves your life, like going to the gym, reading books, volunteering, etc. It's ironic that people claim "normal" people put women on a pedestal, when all the positive things those books describe can and arguably should be done without the thought of getting a mate crossing your mind. It's the PUA community that advocates self improvement to attain another person. Here's my 2 cents. You're advocating them to get a life, which I agree with. Going to the gym, volunteer and getting hobbies is something everybody should do. But even if you do that, it doesn't mean you'l conquer your fears of approaching women. What is the best way to conquer those fears? Approach more women and see them eye-to-eye (same value as you are). At the beginning, you think: "Ah shit, I'l look stupid. I don't want to get embarrassed in front of my friends blah blah". That's where you see her too much of a false Godesse; you see her with too much value. At the beginning, it will definitely feel like fake confidence. As you practice more and more, you'l overcome it and it will become a real confidence. Eventually you see her eye-to-eye and just have fun. Its like being scared of heights. I'm deathly scared of heights and when I went skydiving, I was fucking scared to death. You try to be brave, but you can't help to be scared. As you progress, you become more habituated. Its about realizing that your worst fears are essentially imagined. They're not real. And when you realize that the fears that you had before are imaginary, you become a better and more confident person...and you end up living a much better life. The problem is that you're using your interaction with other human beings as a tool for yourself, which imo is wrong, especially given that you are almost in all situations presenting the situation to the other person in such a light that suggests the purpose of the interaction is the exact opposite. It is dishonest and an immature approach to interaction with other people. Yeah, a lot of you will tell me that its about improving yourself as a person by getting over your fears of talking to women, social anxiety, etc... but there are a lot more healthy ways to do this other than engaging in 'peacocking', willfully trying to manipulate the subconscious thoughts/feelings of women you meet in order to meet your ends of either getting laid or feeling desired by the opposite sex. No matter which way you cut it, I am not at all convinced that PUA's are people interested in some morally acceptable form of self-improvement. The practice is obviously self-oriented and engages in exploitative methods. Even though the end result may be overcoming a fear, or improving your own level of confidence, there are unacceptable means, and other more wholesome ways to achieve the same ends. I'm sorry but I just don't see how a mature and rational person can justify 'playing the game' like that. you're talking about deceiving people and peacocking. what universe do you live on? i thought that fad already died out. pick up isnt even pick up anymore. its evolved into just general "be confident" "have fun socializing with new people" "love yourself" "express yourself and who you are truly" "be happy always" what you think of when you think about the community, i bet this is what you're thinking of: + Show Spoiler +when i think of the community, i think of laughing, socializing, having fun and partying + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_6Xqspn-o
this guy fucking wears a toy reindeer on his groin. is this what you think of as tactics and techniques? no. it isnt. thats just who he is and hes having fun with it. this is what I think of when i think of the community The inner game, aka "natural" methodology you are talking about has deep problems. you see, it started as a sort of new-age post-PUA movement, with former mystery method & ross jeffries etc followers trying to branch out and employing a different way of getting women. Now the naturals CONSCIOUSLY rejected practical methodology, substituting it with tthe inner game/vibe/egoless approach. Now those guys didnt understand it, but they in fact didnt reject the methodology of the technical outer game approach, they only forgot about it. Subconsciously they kept employing the same techniques. And that led to the failure of its advancement. You see, the newcomers, whom the now inner game/vibe/egoless guys tried to teach, struggled to grasp their conscepts. While what they were taught sounded good in theory, they couldnt employ it to get numbers and f-closes. That was the beginning of the end. While the large community of inner game freaks keeps hanging out at boards likes sosuave, rsdn, etc and discussing the abstract philosophical concepts, their practical approaches have stagnated. The outer game community keeps innovating game, successfully teaching newcomers to the field with PRACTICAL skills, moving the ball forward. And so it is, that as in other fields in life, the guys who just have "fun", forget about methodology, and concentrate on attitude instead of substance, succeed only in deluding themselves in their success, as that is all activity is about. if you're trying to say natural, unscripted game doesnt work then you are wrong. if you are saying rsd is unsuccessful then you are wrong. You misunderstand. The natural method guys are good because of the reasons i noted. Their failure lies in their dogma, preventing fast progression of newcomers. Ill tell you what,try teaching a new comer. A teach them the natural game abstract concepts B teach them practical mystery method & NLP the B guy will advance faster, PERIOD.
That's why you teach them B then A
|
On June 03 2011 04:06 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation. Your reading comprehension skills are beyond repair. I was merely saying that I don't want to hear any non-free will retort, since it's self-defeating (if we don't have free will, what's the point...). (and given your prior arguments it seemed like something you might bring up)
which he promptly did + Show Spoiler +
this is the first time I've witnessed concerted effort to deny that free will exists (the most useless non-argument ever conceived)
|
On June 03 2011 04:06 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation. Your reading comprehension skills are beyond repair. I was merely saying that I don't want to hear any non-free will retort, since it's self-defeating (if we don't have free will, what's the point...). (and given your prior arguments it seemed like something you might bring up) You misunderstand. Admitting that free will doesnt exist does NOT imply the world being pointless or similar conscepts. The two claims are in a totally different space of categories. The first applies to the objective world, that is people around you. You can use the methods of manipulation because objectively, people do not have a free will. However inside the subjective world, your mind, the points, goals, valuations exist, as it is the space of mind.
|
On June 03 2011 04:10 Delerium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 04:06 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:53 PJA wrote:On June 03 2011 03:46 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 03:43 Delerium wrote:On June 03 2011 03:20 xarthaz wrote:On June 03 2011 00:01 whiteguycash wrote:
I spend a short time hanging out in one of these forums shortly after Neil released his book. From my experience, there are quite a few delusional folks in those forums that view women as little more than a jigsaw puzzle or a combination lock, which is quite far from reality.
Many of the men in these communities reek of desperation, lack of validation and issues with self-acceptance. Some of these communities, however, have been able to support eachother in helping build eachother up, and develop that othewise non-existant confidence. People are combination locks. To be percise, people are organic robots, as are all other forms of life. See the recent thread on the subject. As such, the premise of women being a subject of gameplay is valid. + Show Spoiler +And in general, pickup has EXCELLENT gameplay. It is simply one of the best games to play. It combines the basic sex drive that usually tends to be resolved in a primitive undynamic manner(masturbation/regular sex partner), and gives it a whole new boost with the variety of women and mechanics necessary to be employed. Make no mistake, pickup takes both good gamesense, planning, and micro ability to manage the kino, body language, voice, and content of activities. For the intelligent demanding starcraft player especially, it is a suitable challenge given the multitude of paradigms necessary to master. Aswell as the graphics junkies, as pickup boasts the latest and best HD rendering your eyes can parse. Do you regard yourself as a combination lock? Do you want other people to regard you as a combination lock? Is it different regarding others as a puzzle to be solved or a vending machine, than it is looking at yourself this way? I don't personally look at myself as a vending machine that can be manipulated by others into getting what they want from me, and I likewise don't look at others in this way either. I'm suspicious that people who are okay with treating other people as easily manipulated by psychology don't look at themselves in the same way. Then your self observations have been somewhat shallow. It is beyond doubt that combinatorical methodologies for interpersonal manipulation exist. The whole premise of them NOT existing rests on then onsensical ideas of religious dogma or mysticist rejection of physicalism. Hence, my conclusions are strictly correct, and my argumentation follows. Would you stop using words like "argumentation" and "combinatorical" (which isn't even a fucking word, it's "combinatorial")? You sound like an even bigger tool than you already do for believing the nonsense you're spewing. Even assuming the whole physicalism philosophy, there's a difference between acting like a sociopath and treating people with respect and dignity. And don't bring up some pseudo-intellectual non-belief in free will argument. It's a bit self-defeating. Perceiving free will does not imply existence of free will. Existance of objext is determined by the positivist methodology, that of the scientific method. The existence of it in the first place violated the conditions i presented and is a Category error, hence it does not imply a logical fallacy in my argumentation. Your reading comprehension skills are beyond repair. I was merely saying that I don't want to hear any non-free will retort, since it's self-defeating (if we don't have free will, what's the point...). (and given your prior arguments it seemed like something you might bring up) which he promptly did + Show Spoiler +this is the first time I've witnessed concerted effort to deny that free will exists (the most useless non-argument ever conceived)
I'm just good at quickly and accurately judging the type of troll.
It's a necessary skill in life imo.
|
PUA changed my life completely.
It's funny to me how people STILL seem to think it's all about tricks and gimmicks. It has nothing to do with that.
My life has simply exploded ever since I learned the PUA basics. All the tricks and gimmicks exist, but the actual companies that teach them use them only as training wheels. It's ridiculously hard to approach a girl you've never met for the first time, so having some routines and "tricks" up your sleeve helps to build confidence.
If you stick with them forever, though, the best you're going to get is the occasional one night stand. You really can't fake your way through relationships/confidence, and the majority of people who teach "pickup" know this.
Unfortunately, the media (and everyone else) is completely fixated on this ONE aspect of PUA. It's not even close to the main focus. The main focus is getting your life together, so you actually can be attractive to other girls.
Having the ability to approach a random group of girls and actually get somewhere is truly amazing. It's possible for anyone to get to that point with PUA, which is why even though it has some glaring faults, it's an excellent system.
Everyone should at least give it a try, if for only curiosity's sake.
|
I'm sure if you tell a girl "You don't have free will, and neither do I, and I'm going to use psychology to get you to sleep with me tonight" it will have fine results
I'm just good at quickly and accurately judging the type of troll.
It's a necessary skill in life imo.
true dat, boo
|
lol i went to the wikipedia page and was more interested by the psycho-linguistic related pages than the application of it to pick up women.
|
Guys just be yourself, there's girls for everyone, you don't have to memorize a script and wear makeup and piercings. Getting to know girls isn't something that a guy should put extra effort into doing. Plus it's also more satisfying when girls come to you because of who you are, not what books you read or tutorials you viewed. Also, if you happen to really like this girl and end up in a relationship... The "how we met" becomes a big part, I don't think I need to explain any further...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sspp4owv69k/TcsQc4aocXI/AAAAAAAAARg/fzpOkvgPabE/s1600/mystery1.jpg)
