Post: #1

There's divided opinion on looks versus game, but this is how I see it.
For the purposes of this scenario, assume the prettyboy and the thug are of equal height.
Thug is shorthand for any ugly, aggressive man.

For women, a prettyboy increases the likelihood of a pretty daughter or a pretty son.
A pretty son can play the same game his father did, and a pretty daughter is guaranteed to pass on her genes.
It's a sure thing, a conservative evolutionary tactic. Daughter-centric.

A thug, though, is a gamble. He increases the likelihood of a manjawed amazon daughter or an alpha son.
A manfaced daughter is a disaster, but an alpha son is a high stakes gamble.
He might get killed following his father's footsteps, or he might grow up to be Genghis Khan.
It's a risk-taking evolutionary tactic. Son-centric.

A 5 is not popular. She's already on the fringes. The safest bet is the cute boy, who can piggyback her genes into the future on his.

A 10 is not worried about an ugly daughter, and is likely to produce a pretty son regardless of the father. She leans towards the thug, who can only add opportunity into the mix, a chance for a pretty alpha son who could always find a woman even if he loses the struggle for power (and survives, of course.)

Post: #2

Personal opinion and experience is that game really beats looks in the long run.

I am a good looking guy and when I had very little game I sometimes got approached first, but I've seen guys who look like knuckle draggers with very hot girls.

I think even a fat guy with very good game has a better shot in the long run; the thing is that overeating and obesity tend to go hand in hand with lack of self esteem and poor game.

The idea that attraction is "all just about the genetics of the child" I don't buy.

I think it has to do with whether or not the man is perceived as confident and competant a provider; since instinct is still geared toward the idea of finding a courageous man who can protect and provide from his offspring.

If a man is scared of his own shadow, even if he looks good he won't be perceived as someone a pregnant woman could rely on to fend off attackers and protect her future offsping.

(This is also a misunderstanding about "evolution"; in animals "success" is not just measured by the number of partners one has passed their genes too but also the longevity of potential offspring, so if a male acts too weak or spineless to be perceived as a competent protector and provider, the longevity decreases).

Post: #3

Dennis Prager, radio talk show host for those who don't know, has this pretty well figured out. It's not specifically on game, but it has the theme down.





Basically, women like looking at attractive men, but are easily distracted and further attracted by features and qualities of non-physical assets. You can game a woman as an average guy, average male looks, average male body; so long as game is above average, you can pull high quality.

Post: #4

This another looks vs game thread? Fuck. Search function.

Also theory is wack. Women don't think about babies, they think about 'gina tingles. C'mon now.

Post: #5

(04-13-2016 12:18 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  This another looks vs game thread? Fuck. Search function.

Also theory is wack. Women don't think about babies, they think about 'gina tingles. C'mon now.

In one ear and out the other.

Post: #6

(04-13-2016 01:41 AM)dispenser Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 12:18 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  This another looks vs game thread? Fuck. Search function.

Also theory is wack. Women don't think about babies, they think about 'gina tingles. C'mon now.

In one ear and out the other.

It's subconscious; one mistake a lot of guys make is not understanding the difference between conscious and subconscious desires.

From what I've read humans are programmed by instinct to be attracted to those who are perceived as the most desirable partners, has very little to do with rationality at all.

"Nice guys" frequently fail to get this; they assume that because they "have a stable job" and "pay bills" women should be logically attracted to them, but attraction has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with desire; just like drinking alcohol, "logically" there's no reason to do so because it's a toxin, but people are emotional creatures, not Vulcans from Star Trek, so they'd rather drink booze than a... tofu smoothie because booze feels a lot better.

Men are the same (and there's nothing wrong with that) - subconsciously hot, younger women are the most attractive because our instinct perceives them as fertile; even if we have no conscious desire to have a kid with them it doesn't stop our animal instinct from wanting to pursue them

Post: #7

(04-13-2016 12:18 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  Women don't think

Fixed that for you.

Also, thread molesting a dead horse.

Post: #8

Move to the newb board

Post: #9

(04-13-2016 07:35 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Move to the newb board

I like to clarify things, especially fundamental things. Fundamentals are always worth examining.
I don't see how abstract thought belongs on the "how du i sex" board.

Post: #10

This punnet square mentality you have about assortative mating never plays out in real life. Only a newb would think that it does. Let your pretty little lie perish.

WIA

Post: #11

(04-13-2016 08:46 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  This punnet square mentality you have about assortative mating never plays out in real life. Only a newb would think that it does. Let your pretty little lie perish.

WIA

So, in your experience, you've observed that less attractive girls merit the same degree of asshole game as the higher ranking girls? It's never counterproductive?

Logic is not unrealistic.

There's certainly room for instinctive, unplanned behaviour, but without logic people get trapped in the same knee-jerk reactions over and over again.

Post: #12

(04-13-2016 09:02 PM)dispenser Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:46 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  This punnet square mentality you have about assortative mating never plays out in real life. Only a newb would think that it does. Let your pretty little lie perish.

WIA

So, in your experience, you've observed that less attractive girls merit the same degree of asshole game as the higher ranking girls? It's never counterproductive?

Logic is not unrealistic.

There's certainly room for instinctive, unplanned behaviour, but without logic people get trapped in the same knee-jerk reactions over and over again.

Your main point is under attack because it's an inference about the nature of game that isn't likely based on experience. Stop wasting time trying to pre-sort your targets into such absurdly broad and subjective categories like "attractive" and "less-attractive".

When it comes to game, trying to create some kind of universal formula for how to approach what girls and when is doomed to failure for two main reasons:
1) People are way too complicated
2) It's a crutch that you're using to avoid experiencing the inevitable rejection and embarrassment necessary for growth


Logic, you idiot, is not a synonym for "stream of consciousness that makes sense to me right now."

Quote:Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference. For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that logic "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations".

Post: #13

(04-13-2016 09:02 PM)dispenser Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:46 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  This punnet square mentality you have about assortative mating never plays out in real life. Only a newb would think that it does. Let your pretty little lie perish.

WIA

So, in your experience, you've observed that less attractive girls merit the same degree of asshole game as the higher ranking girls? It's never counterproductive?

Logic is not unrealistic.

There's certainly room for instinctive, unplanned behaviour, but without logic people get trapped in the same knee-jerk reactions over and over again.

1) I don't use asshole game. I'm not a fan of that school of thought because it turns guys into robots that can't process people

2) Girls that I think are ugly and girls that I think are pretty - are really just in my head.

She might have the face of a 5, body of a 7, and think she's a 10, because she believes in herself.

Or she might have a okay face, a great body, and all the guys around her, gas her up because she's got a phat ass.

But I like titties, so that chick doesn't do anything for me.

So she could look like a 10, but think she's a 7.
She could look like a 7, and think she's a 10.
She could look like a 10 and get treated like a 5 (a hot black girl at a all white school)
She could look like a 5 and get treated like a 10 (a dumpy white girl at an all black school)

I can't base my approach on something that I don't have control over.
I can't control how she thinks about herself, or how other people think abou her.

So the better move is to approach a chick with the energy that YOU prefer, and take it up a notch or tone it down after the interaction starts.

3) People react all the time - the point of the game is to guide their reactions, guide their emotions.

Sometimes you can't see them react, or you don't know what to look for - so you keep going until you get feedback. And when you get feedback, you latch on to whatever happened, and push forward.

This shit is not easy - but it's not rocket science either. It's a new skill that most guys don't have.

But if you come at the game with the idea that
9's and 10's are predisposed to manly men and pretty boys, but 7's and the like don't trust their genes enough to date anything but the 'best'..a standard they can't hope to achieve
- what does that do for the player?

It stops him from talking to the girls he finds attractive.
It gives him a reason to stay at the bar, to hold the wall, to stay quiet.

You have to deprogram all that shit out of yourself, or you won't act.

Going out, interacting, observing - it will show you the truth.

I see ugly girls with good looking dudes, daily. Tall, built, nice hair cuts, obvious money with these short stubby mousy looking girls. Meanwhile there are cute thin chicks all around. (though never as many as people want)

I see goofy looking guys with good looking chicks too. (Latino dudes really do well for themselves) It's not always money. It's usually not money. I won't even start with the Ethiopians.

Then you see people that look the part - equally attractive - and then you notice their interactions, she henpecks him, or he's really cold to her.

That's what going out and running game, meeting people, will show you.

WIA

Post: #14

(04-13-2016 09:42 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  So she could look like a 10, but think she's a 7.
She could look like a 7, and think she's a 10.
She could look like a 10 and get treated like a 5 (a hot black girl at a all white school)
She could look like a 5 and get treated like a 10 (a dumpy white girl at an all black school)


WIA

Fuck WIA always drop gems in otherwise redundant thread. Somebody fucking makes a highlight function for the forum so that people get pinged when there's wisdom incoming.

Realizing the above part, is the moment I could say, I was actually practicing game.

The trick is to find the girl who is an 8-9 but thinks she is a 5. Then you keep her to yourself, and makes her think she is a 9 to you but a 5 to everyone else, while you are a 10 to the world.

Knowing how you think, and how SHE thinks, and how to leverage that into what you want, is the hallmark of good game and of an influential man.

Sorting people into categories and stereotypes. Any dumbass basement dweller can write book about that.

Post: #15

First post of the thread junky. The following post also junk. Why? As already mentioned, there are other threads on the forum where the same exact thing could be discussed. Instead we have newbies starting threads to seek attention. We also have other newbies that narrowly escaped banning come in and feed the confusion.

dispenser and EDantes, you guys are not stupid. For fucks sakes, add some value to the forum before starting threads on "dead horse" topics. And EDantes, you have been on my radar and you are way overdue for a value added post.

I still have my eye on a few newbies that think it's good enough to post a bunch to get a high post count and little to no reps. People will rep you if you're genuine no matter what, whether it's quality posts or meetups. I'm not seeing that from either of you guys. I'd like at least 5 approaches from you guys or a data sheet contribution before I have to see another one of these ridiculous posts. Or just meet one person with 10+ reps. Just one.

I wonder if it would be fine with starting a thread for "on the bubble" newbies that are narrowly treading the forum. Maybe that can be their "proving ground."

Post: #16

Oh shit, Cobra is on the hunt this morning.

Post: #17

(04-14-2016 07:19 AM)Cobra Wrote:  First post of the thread junky. The following post also junk. Why? As already mentioned, there are other threads on the forum where the same exact thing could be discussed. Instead we have newbies starting threads to seek attention. We also have other newbies that narrowly escaped banning come in and feed the confusion.

dispenser and EDantes, you guys are not stupid. For fucks sakes, add some value to the forum before starting threads on "dead horse" topics. And EDantes, you have been on my radar and you are way overdue for a value added post.

I still have my eye on a few newbies that think it's good enough to post a bunch to get a high post count and little to no reps. People will rep you if you're genuine no matter what, whether it's quality posts or meetups. I'm not seeing that from either of you guys. I'd like at least 5 approaches from you guys or a data sheet contribution before I have to see another one of these ridiculous posts. Or just meet one person with 10+ reps. Just one.

I wonder if it would be fine with starting a thread for "on the bubble" newbies that are narrowly treading the forum. Maybe that can be their "proving ground."

Post: #18

Amateur evo-pysch navel-gazing is counterproductive to the process of actually getting laid. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" speculation of this type should probably be off limits to anyone without confirmed scientific credentials.

People much smarter than OP have likely spent a lot of time pondering similar questions. As far as I can discern, nobody has concrete evidence for any of these "theories."