Post: #1

Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video.

Similarly, I asked how to improve dud dates, and most of the responses emphasized selecting more eager companions.
How to Manage Dud Dates

I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

I have even seen Neil Strauss criticized because he levered his rock journalism connections. But remember - he felt like a lowly ink-stained wretch among the cool musicians, and could not capitalize on this for years. That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.

Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

Post: #2

this should be good.

Post: #3

If you only go after girls that display some kind of interest before you've approached, then you won't be getting laid much. Most women put on the poker face, so you need to take it one step forward and just approach them. How they react after the approach matters more.

Post: #4

interesting is just half of it. being cool is the other half. those two things should cover it

http://www.rooshv.com/the-two-things-tha...es-down-to

Post: #5

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video.

Similarly, I asked how to improve dud dates, and most of the responses emphasized selecting more eager companions.
How to Manage Dud Dates

I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

I have even seen Neil Strauss criticized because he levered his rock journalism connections. But remember - he felt like a lowly ink-stained wretch among the cool musicians, and could not capitalize on this for years. That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.

Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

There is nothing wrong at all with improving your fitness/reading and traveling. People who say those thing's don't matter are the same people who say looks don't matter. Speaking from personal experience. My results took a nosedive when I was unemployed sat on my ass and put on 30+ pounds (after already being 25 pounds overweight).

Game is being able to utilize whatever you tactic/philosophy/mindset/technique you can to win and pre-selection is one those

Post: #6

I didn't even read the blog post that way.

I read it as 'Guy wants to know everything Roosh has learned about women.'
Roosh implies that in order to learn everything he has learned about women, you've got to walk in the same shoes as him for a while.

Basically, you don't learn how to be good with women in isolation.
Essentially, if you want to get women like Roosh, mimick Roosh. If you want to get laid like a rockstar, be a rockstar. So on and so forth.

Post: #7

True. think about how you react to a girl you really like.

Most guys will look at her and turn the face as soon as they make an eye contact. I did that many times just because I was nervous and I am sure it made them think I am not into them at all.

(03-01-2012 03:07 PM)soup Wrote:  If you only go after girls that display some kind of interest before you've approached, then you won't be getting laid much. Most women put on the poker face, so you need to take it one step forward and just approach them. How they react after the approach matters more.

Post: #8

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video.

Similarly, I asked how to improve dud dates, and most of the responses emphasized selecting more eager companions.
How to Manage Dud Dates

I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

I have even seen Neil Strauss criticized because he levered his rock journalism connections. But remember - he felt like a lowly ink-stained wretch among the cool musicians, and could not capitalize on this for years. That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.

Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

Kim, I think you still sort of have a novice mindset. Tyler Durden in the Blueprint has an excellent analysis of this actually. I forget the exact words he uses, but it revolves around being internally and externally focused. A man who is internally focused believes that any good or bad outcome is due to his efforts. A man with an external locus of control attributes his outcomes to things beyond his control.

Mainstream wisdom is that romance is entirely out of your control. "Be yourself." "Chemistry." "Fate." The 'seduction industry' tends towards the opposite, that it's completely under your control, and the fault lies entirely with you. The problem with being 100% external is that you think there's nothing you can do to improve. If you're 100% internal, you get weird, awkward, you overthink everything, and then you blame yourself when you aren't the cause.

The optimal mindset is a bit of both. Identify where you can improve, but understand that your failures may sometimes be beyond your control. For instance, if a date doesn't go well for me, I will try to identify things I could have done better that might have made me more likely to succeed. But overall, I probably just feel like the bitch sucked. If she was cool, we'd be going on another date.

There are so many things in this game that are out of your control, that you can't blame it all on yourself.

Edit: To add, the proper mindset as Roosh has written is to not care about any single girl, but to try and continually make yourself attractive to women as a group, and your niche of women in particular.

I sincerely believe that if a girl doesn't like me, it's because she just doesn't know me well enough. Or she sucks as a person. I've occasionally disclosed this belief to women, and they find it hilarious...

Post: #9

(03-01-2012 09:26 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Kim, I think you still sort of have a novice mindset. Tyler Durden in the Blueprint has an excellent analysis of this actually. I forget the exact words he uses, but it revolves around being internally and externally focused. A man who is internally focused believes that any good or bad outcome is due to his efforts. A man with an external locus of control attributes his outcomes to things beyond his control.

Mainstream wisdom is that romance is entirely out of your control. "Be yourself." "Chemistry." "Fate." The 'seduction industry' tends towards the opposite, that it's completely under your control, and the fault lies entirely with you. The problem with being 100% external is that you think there's nothing you can do to improve. If you're 100% internal, you get weird, awkward, you overthink everything, and then you blame yourself when you aren't the cause.

The optimal mindset is a bit of both. Identify where you can improve, but understand that your failures may sometimes be beyond your control. For instance, if a date doesn't go well for me, I will try to identify things I could have done better that might have made me more likely to succeed. But overall, I feel like the bitch just sucked. If she was cool, we'd be going on another date.

There are so many things in this game that are out of your control, that you can't blame it all on yourself.

Post: #10

(03-01-2012 09:26 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video.

Similarly, I asked how to improve dud dates, and most of the responses emphasized selecting more eager companions.
How to Manage Dud Dates

I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

I have even seen Neil Strauss criticized because he levered his rock journalism connections. But remember - he felt like a lowly ink-stained wretch among the cool musicians, and could not capitalize on this for years. That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.

Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

Kim, I think you still sort of have a novice mindset. Tyler Durden in the Blueprint has an excellent analysis of this actually. I forget the exact words he uses, but it revolves around being internally and externally focused. A man who is internally focused believes that any good or bad outcome is due to his efforts. A man with an external locus of control attributes his outcomes to things beyond his control.

Mainstream wisdom is that romance is entirely out of your control. "Be yourself." "Chemistry." "Fate." The 'seduction industry' tends towards the opposite, that it's completely under your control, and the fault lies entirely with you. The problem with being 100% external is that you think there's nothing you can do to improve. If you're 100% internal, you get weird, awkward, you overthink everything, and then you blame yourself when you aren't the cause.

The optimal mindset is a bit of both. Identify where you can improve, but understand that your failures may sometimes be beyond your control. For instance, if a date doesn't go well for me, I will try to identify things I could have done better that might have made me more likely to succeed. But overall, I probably just feel like the bitch sucked. If she was cool, we'd be going on another date.

There are so many things in this game that are out of your control, that you can't blame it all on yourself.

Edit: To add, the proper mindset as Roosh has written is to not care about any single girl, but to try and continually make yourself attractive to women as a group, and your niche of women in particular.

I sincerely believe that if a girl doesn't like me, it's because she just doesn't know me well enough. Or she sucks as a person. I've occasionally disclosed this belief to women, and they find it hilarious...

great analysis +1

Post: #11

Selection is Game..

"Target selection" that is,

Part of being a successful player is choosing good "prospects". Girls that we have a chance with and who will respond to our own unique style and vibe. We have to know ourselves, our strengths and limitations, and which types of girls respond best to us.

The more experience you have, the easier this gets. Don't waste time with girls that you don't vibe with.

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video

No. Roosh is not saying to just "be yourself". He is saying to improve yourself and to display the most attractive version of yourself.

Post: #12

I made the guy do 200 approaches. Is that "be yourself" advice?

Game denialists don't even get up to 20 before they declare game doesn't work.

Post: #13

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We get rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

Educated in what areas? If you are not educated in the seduction science and arts then your education is incomplete. I know plenty of guys with PHd's who can't get laid. And, conversely, guys who dropped out of school and get tons of ass.

If you don't have the skills to get laid. Then, how educated are you???

Travel alone does very little. What's important is your ability to translate those travel experiences into an attractive, high value vibe that demonstrates alphaness to the girl your talking to.

In-shape. Your body is not as important as your brain! You gotta have the right mindset and attitude. As well as the verbal skills to communicate your attractiveness to girls. Your tongue is actually the most important muscle in body in terms of getting laid!

You could have multiple PHd's from Harvard, travel all over the world, and be a champion bodybuilder. But, if you are a dork who doesn't know how to talk to girls, none of that will matter.

Remember, girls don't care about logic. In fact, illogic is often sexier and more exciting to them..

Post: #14

Yesterday I went to a cafe/bar and posted up near the ladies room reading a book about real estate financing. I opened every girl that went by with: "Hey, can I ask you something? How attractive is a guy reading this book?" And showed them the cover. Six approaches total. First girl was annoyed: "Not very." and left immediately. Second one said: "I intern in finance and even I find this boring.", but we chatted for a while. And so forth. Girl number 6 I've had a long talk and another beer with and also met her friend later. I didn't close but that's my fault. I wouldn't say I was exercising game, but how is that for screening?

It's very easy. The only difficulty was getting back into a chatty mood for a minute after the first rejection.

Post: #15

(03-01-2012 03:07 PM)soup Wrote:  If you only go after girls that display some kind of interest before you've approached, then you won't be getting laid much. Most women put on the poker face, so you need to take it one step forward and just approach them. How they react after the approach matters more.

+1

I can't express enough how true this is. I've destroyed so many of my limiting beliefs, and got in such a good state just by simply ignoring the knot in my stomach and approaching girls. After that, if she's attracted to you, most of the "game" is just to not fuck it up.

(03-01-2012 09:26 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I sincerely believe that if a girl doesn't like me, it's because she just doesn't know me well enough. Or she sucks as a person. I've occasionally disclosed this belief to women, and they find it hilarious...

I believe the same thing and I don't think it's overconfidence. There's no such thing lol. That's why it really hurts guys' soul when chicks they meet won't give me the time of day simply because of their physical appearance. Because of preference or stereotypes or whatever, you pretty much have be the 150% opposite of what they've seen before they try something new in you. And this behavior ends up backfiring for these girls because severly limiting their dating pool means they're more likelyto become one of those hot but lonely yuppie types in NYC that complains that there are no good guys left but never bothers to open her mind to other types of guys.

I'm a numbers kind of guy. Game definintily supplements your success rate. No doubt about that. But I think numbers supplements it better than anything else. For example, I'd rather search the Czech Republic for a hot/sexy open-minded girl who also happens to be into video games and sports like me. The chances of finding that in CR or other EE countries are higher than in the US simply because there are more hot girls. Sure you've got girls like that in the states, but the chances of you meeting a hottie at the Art Institute (or whatever you like your girls to be into) is not as high. Plus don't get me started on the feminism thing. I know the TV says that every other hottie also happens to be cool and down to earth, but my experience hasn't been like that. What my experience has shown me is that every other girl is hot as hell in places like Latvia, and going to the colleges or art schools doesn't dissapoint as they're still as gorgeous but also have brains and can talk about the stuff I like to talk about. I've had girls overseas literally fight over my time and affection, and it surprises me the stuff that they do to win me over. This can perhaps be done in the states but the girl won't be as hot. My game isn't that tight, but due to sheer numbers of hotties in the countries I've lived at I've been able to fuck a lot of beautiful girls in my life, with many of them falling in love with me. I honestly think that no amount of game could help me acheive that in the states. It may be a limiting belief but unless you have money or fame or extremely good looks in the states you won't be able to fuck hotties like the ones in Latvia and Russia and Tokyo so often. Not even close. Game helps but no HB9 or 10 will be falling in love with you in the states just off your game or the fact that you have abs and you read a lot of books. If you're an average looking guy with average money but high standard (like me ), to increase your chances of fucking hot girls (or finding love) you need to increase your exotic wow factor. Because in the end what matters is increasing your rate of selection. I agree with selection, so going to the place where it's at my advantage makes the most sense to me. Getting an A in effort can only get you so far in today's fickle female society.

Being an American overseas is akin to being a rockstar back home. Your social value increases by default.

Post: #16

(03-02-2012 11:53 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Selection is Game..

"Target selection" that is,

Part of being a successful player is choosing good "prospects". Girls that we have a chance with and who will respond to our own unique style and vibe. We have to know ourselves, our strengths and limitations, and which types of girls respond best to us.

The more experience you have, the easier this gets. Don't waste time with girls that you don't vibe with.

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"? It is a real contrast to his alpha/beta video

No. Roosh is not saying to just "be yourself". He is saying to improve yourself and to display the most attractive version of yourself.

The only vibing that matters to me when it comes to target selection is whether or not my dick gets hard. If I start to feel anxiety for a chick, then I especially know that I must approach her, and no excuses are acceptable. This is not about any particular girl or any notch count of women, it is about conquering woman.

Post: #17

[/b]

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

This thread didn't become what I thought it would be. I thought it would be something like "Roosh repudiates the game" - cause the stuff that Roosh tells the guy (aside from the 200 approaches) is what girls who read Cosmo and have seen the notebook would say.

The Roosh Post - some of my interpretations.
- There is no "student" - Roosh is talking about himself. By doing all of those things over the course of 3 years, he became who he is. There are no lessons about "women" to learn, getting good with them is really a journey of self discovery. (Neil says as much about routines - the routines don't convince girls, they convince the guys that it's okay to socialize)

- If you really want to take advantage of "the cube" and freeze outs during last minute resistance and other techniques and tactics, you need to be your best self. Working out, traveling, speaking other languages, getting 200 approaches under you belt - it's only then that you can truly be ready to learn about women. You don't need to learn how to merge groups until you can approach on a regular basis.

- by doing all of that preparation, dude gets a hot girlfriend - maybe that's all he actually wanted in the end, and he didn't need to learn about women.....yet.

Lotta different ways you could flip it.

______________________

Screening for interests? If that's what you want, hit on girls within your scene. If there are no girls, you've got to organize some shit in your scene and make it easy for girls to come.

WIA

Post: #18

(03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"?

There are basically two parts of "the game":

- Live a life other people would like to be part of (which automatically translates to "being interesting", not being needy and having some confidence);
- Go out often, and be social (no chick will approach you if you're staying at home playing xbox);

That's enough to get results, assuming you're willing to practice, learn on your mistakes and to take the risk.

Thing is, some people think "game" is like science, the more you study the better you become. But it is not.

The "game" is more like going to gym. You can go to gym without reading anything and knowing nothing, look at what other people do, try to repeat it, see what works for you and throw away what doesn't. And just in a few months you'll get visible results. Reading the books/watching the movies about it may allow you to get the results a little faster, but most people would progress fast enough without all that and applying the bodybuilder techniques to a newbie with a weak body might actually do more harm than good. At the same time, just reading the books about getting muscles but only going to gym once a month to practice brings you nowhere. Read them when you hit the plateau or got a specific issue.

Quote:I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.

This is a wrong criteria. You will not get rejected less when you get better, quite the opposite - most people seem to start approaching more and in more difficult situations, and as a result they also got rejected more. I have personally seen Tyler rejected more times in one night than I was in the last year. The "game" is not about finding that particular girl you like and make it attracted to you with 100% success rate, so a particular rejection does not matter.

Quote:That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.

I think this is one of common PUA generalization myths.

Quote:Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.

The strategy is definitely not for everyone. Personally I enjoy it since my goal is to get laid with as little effort as possible, and I don't want to deal with 18-25 chicks at all, but this is definitely not what everyone else is looking for.

With years my approaching was becoming more and more reactive, and during the last year I stopped doing it completely. If two years ago I'd approach a chick who was smiling and holding eye contact with me, now I will not approach anyone, even a chick who passed by and rubbed her boob on my elbow (seems like American chicks here in Bay Area do it a lot). They should approach me and do most of the work during the first 15 minutes - and then if I'm interested I'd take the initiative and start leading (otherwise it is hard to balance at this fine point of being interested enough for too long). There is no rejection, no resistance, no need to change venues, and typically you can handle it in 30-60 minutes.

The drawbacks of this method, however, are obvious. First you're giving up the quality control to the chicks - you can only choose among those who approached you (or among those who showed interest); there may be a cute chick who didn't show any interest but who'd be open to you. Second, this only works in America and very westernized countries, it will not work in EE/Russia. And of course you waste a lot of good opportunities this way, so this is truly only for the people who don't mind it.

Post: #19

Quote:The strategy is definitely not for everyone. Personally I enjoy it since my goal is to get laid with as little effort as possible, and I don't want to deal with 18-25 chicks at all, but this is definitely not what everyone else is looking for.

With years my approaching was becoming more and more reactive, and during the last year I stopped doing it completely. If two years ago I'd approach a chick who was smiling and holding eye contact with me, now I will not approach anyone, even a chick who passed by and rubbed her boob on my elbow (seems like American chicks here in Bay Area do it a lot). They should approach me and do most of the work during the first 15 minutes - and then if I'm interested I'd take the initiative and start leading (otherwise it is hard to balance at this fine point of being interested enough for too long). There is no rejection, no resistance, no need to change venues, and typically you can handle it in 30-60 minutes.

The drawbacks of this method, however, are obvious. First you're giving up the quality control to the chicks - you can only choose among those who approached you (or among those who showed interest); there may be a cute chick who didn't show any interest but who'd be open to you. Second, this only works in America and very westernized countries, it will not work in EE/Russia. And of course you waste a lot of good opportunities this way, so this is truly only for the people who don't mind it.

So you're not even gaming anymore in this sense. Why are you here then?