Post: #1

I have mentioned it on another thread, but it seems almost supernatural. Can anyone refute/prove it to be as good as it purports to be?[/align]

Post: #2

(01-22-2013 08:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I have mentioned it on another thread, but it seems almost supernatural. Can anyone refute/prove it to be as good as it purports to be?[/align]

Yeah I can see it working if you're well put together. If you're straight off of a 36 hour world of warcraft session and start trying to do NLP on chicks. No dice.

I look at that stuff (NLP, Routines, High Octane Game) as spice and garnish. With game, lifestyle, and bankroll, being the main ingredients to a meal.

But really, a lot of game advice is just recycled and rehashed. Go back and watch a mystery method seminar from the early 2000's and there is much more than the structured, routined, mystery method with a1a2a3c1c2c3s1s2s3
or however it is.

He talks about lifestyle change, state control, all that shit.

The guy was a social genius.

Post: #3

(01-22-2013 08:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I have mentioned it on another thread, but it seems almost supernatural. Can anyone refute/prove it to be as good as it purports to be?[/align]

He's one of the originators of modern game. But kinda like the darkside of it.

Most game is about improving who you are / how you act / things you say. His was more focused on verbal-emotional manipulation. When the losers and manginas squeal about game being manipulation, they are usually referring to RJ.

That being said, if you turn it inward, his stuff is great for inner game.

Post: #4

You gotta respect the OG's of the game

Post: #5

Teedub, you asked this in another thread and got an answer. In the last few weeks since you came in the forum you've started over 20 threads with article clips and general questions that have mostly been covered previously. Chill.

Use the search function, go out and apply what you are learning... You can't ask yourself to game proficiency.

Post: #6

(01-23-2013 01:21 AM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 08:47 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I have mentioned it on another thread, but it seems almost supernatural. Can anyone refute/prove it to be as good as it purports to be?[/align]

Yeah I can see it working if you're well put together. If you're straight off of a 36 hour world of warcraft session and start trying to do NLP on chicks. No dice.

I look at that stuff (NLP, Routines, High Octane Game) as spice and garnish. With game, lifestyle, and bankroll, being the main ingredients to a meal.

But really, a lot of game advice is just recycled and rehashed. Go back and watch a mystery method seminar from the early 2000's and there is much more than the structured, routined, mystery method with a1a2a3c1c2c3s1s2s3
or however it is.

He talks about lifestyle change, state control, all that shit.

The guy was a social genius.

yeah man the guy is super legit.
he even advocated high volume approaching and wearing suits. sadly most ppl reduce him to wearing eye-liner and fuzzy hats.

Post: #7

(01-23-2013 01:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Teedub, you asked this in another thread and got an answer. In the last few weeks since you came in the forum you've started over 20 threads with article clips and general questions that have mostly been covered previously. Chill.

Use the search function, go out and apply what you are learning... You can't ask yourself to game proficiency.

I don't see the problem with posting article clips if they are current and likely to provoke a discussion. I know I asked it in another thread, and cheers for answering. I just thought I'd make an actual thread for the question in the Game section to see a wide range of opinions.

Finally, yeah I probably should chill a bit, its just that I am out of work currently, apart from some freelance stuff I do, so I have a lot of free time on my hands!

Post: #8

Vicious,

I have always wondered about RJ.

Do you mind sharing a little bit about what you learned form his workshop..?

Thanks in advance.

Post: #9

(01-29-2013 02:57 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  Vicious,

I have always wondered about RJ.

Do you mind sharing a little bit about what you learned form his workshop..?

Thanks in advance.

Basically what was in his DC advanced series coupled with some new routines and patterns. The most valuable part was meeting his cadre of experienced students around my own age that talked application.

Post: #10

(01-29-2013 05:26 PM)Vicious Wrote:  Basically what was in his DC advanced series coupled with some new routines and patterns.

I never saw the DC advanced series. In fact, I've never seen any of RJ's stuff.

Do you mind sharing some of his general concepts and ideas..?

What have you learned from him? Etc.?

Thanks

Post: #11

I'll see if I can dig out my old notes from the seminar, I know where I still have them.

Post: #12

The notes are a dozen pages or so and pretty RAW. I'll have to edit them a bit while getting them to digital format. Sometime next week. Will post them in a new thread then.

Post: #13

He says if you're a fisherman, you wouldnt bait with the same ish that you eat (hamburgers, pizza etc), you'd use the type of food that they like to eat.

Post: #14

I did a post on my blog about Ross Jeffries. He is the father of modern PUA

http://partytravelsexlove.com/2012/09/17...er-of-pua/

Post: #15

(01-29-2013 02:57 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  I have always wondered about RJ.

You are not the only one.

He seems to have bad mouthed the so called community that he says does not exist, yet no one really says anything bad about him.

Oh well.

The Telegraph used him as a vehicle to drive home the propaganda of the Pick Up Artist Hate that is around.


Bringing up the ghost of Elliot Rodger, still.

Post: #16

(07-28-2014 07:09 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  You are not the only one.

He seems to have bad mouthed the so called community that he says does not exist, yet no one really says anything bad about him.

Oh well.

The Telegraph used him as a vehicle to drive home the propaganda of the Pick Up Artist Hate that is around.

If you go back a couple years, there are a lot of people who say bad things about him. The reason nobody says anything bad about him is because he's really a non-entity at this point. I don't think he even bothers with most of this stuff anymore, he's 55 years old at this point and I think is married.

Post: #17

(07-28-2014 07:35 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 07:09 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  You are not the only one.

He seems to have bad mouthed the so called community that he says does not exist, yet no one really says anything bad about him.

Oh well.

The Telegraph used him as a vehicle to drive home the propaganda of the Pick Up Artist Hate that is around.

If you go back a couple years, there are a lot of people who say bad things about him. The reason nobody says anything bad about him is because he's really a non-entity at this point. I don't think he even bothers with most of this stuff anymore, he's 55 years old at this point and I think is married.

Cool. All I wanted to know.

Just wondering why an English Newspaper are dredging his name up and conflating it with Elliot Rodger.

It wouldn't be because they have an agenda, would it, and that they are clutching at straws?

Forget I said anything, thanks for explaining.

Post: #18

I took one of the first Ross Jeffries seminars many years ago. At that time, the word "PUA" didn't exist and the community was very small. I moved on long before PUA. He really did start the whole thing. At least at that time, it was a fun atmosphere because nobody else was doing this and there were interesting men at the seminars who you could observe who had very different styles. Jeffries would encourage men to develop their own style and techniques rather than trying to imitate him. He had an associate (Dr. Yates) who was a professional hypnotist and I think I learned more from him than Jeffries. We went out to Santa Monica mall once as a group on Fridays and practiced approaches. At that time, the street was blocked off from cars and there were people walking between the bars. It was a target rich environment.

Post: #19

(01-30-2013 12:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 05:26 PM)Vicious Wrote:  Basically what was in his DC advanced series coupled with some new routines and patterns.

I never saw the DC advanced series. In fact, I've never seen any of RJ's stuff.

Do you mind sharing some of his general concepts and ideas..?

What have you learned from him? Etc.?

Thanks

I watched some of his videos when I first discovered this stuff (2006), just stuff I found in torrents.

He has an audio series called "Unstoppable Confidence" that was pretty good, visualization tricks mostly about getting over AA, though it gives you a good taste of his style too. RJ has a funny way of speaking. He emphasizes things like "weasel words", stuff like saying "below me" but it comes out more like "blow me". The idea is that you're planting suggestions in the girl's subconscious. He emphasizes story telling and these "patterns" where he's eliciting values and emotional states. A lot of it is about deep conversion, really getting inside a woman's head. I think you could pick up some stuff on vocal tone and phrasing from him as well. He opened my eyes to the psychological aspects of it, a woman's basic needs, what motivates her, how her emotions can take over her logical brain. I think you get this stuff already but he's thought a great deal about it.

RJ's day had pretty much passed by the time The Game came out. Style compared RJ to one of the old bluesmen griping about the white boys coming and stealing all his shit, there was definitely some tension between RJ and the 2nd generation of guys like style.

I'd recommend Unstoppable Confidence at least to hear him talk. You can find it on the various torrent sites I'm sure. I may actually have the audio saved off somewhere.

Post: #20

I found this video, it's a good intro to watch. English dialogue, subtitles in French.





Pay attention at about 1:20. Notice how one minute he's cute talking to the cat, then he's talking casually, defining what "speed seduction" is, then his vocal tone changes. His eyes lock onto the guy he's talking to. Listen to his voice, he goes "radio announcer", slows down and says "it's a deeper, much more imaginative" and there's a very subtle emphasis on "deeper", a slightly longer pause following that word. At that point the interviewer sees what he's doing and calls him out. But it's a tiny taste of what he does.

He also discusses his trigger phrases like "can't help yourself" - this is evoking an emotion, which he describes, then talks some about weasel words (new direction vs nude erection). RJ is daygaming. He talks about the advantages. He talks about the same stuff as Roosh with respect to selecting a seat in a coffee shop, then sits down and cold reads his way into a conversation with a blonde MILF. Look very closely at what he does there. This is stuff you don't get from a book, you have to hear it and see it to get it. Look at what happens when the announcer tries it - he just doesn't sound right. He finally gets latched on to the idea, and you can hear the change in vocal tone - he's very relaxed, calm. That last girl he gets a number from he fucked up - he approached from behind, sets off her creep alarm, and then suggests they go somewhere and look at the stars - she's probably thinking "serial killer!" but she gives up the number anyway.

Yeah, I know, it could all be faked. Anything could be faked except your personal experience.

RJ is gaming older women in this, and my general feeling is that this works a bit better on older women. But I don't have much experience with it, maybe some of the guys have good experience using this on younger girls.

Post: #21

Quote:RJ is gaming older women in this, and my general feeling is that this works a bit better on older women. But I don't have much experience with it, maybe some of the guys have good experience using this on younger girls.

It works on any woman who has an imagination. Age is irrelevant. It tends to work better on more intelligent women. You need the imagination because you are using words to invoke imagery. I remember one of the beginner patterns was the "Instantaneous Connection". You would approach a woman and say "Have you ever had an instantaneous connection with someone?" (while subtly pointing to yourself). She would say "Yes". And then you proceed to give a vivid description of an "instantaneous connection" using imagery (e.g., "like a beam of light between me and you") and add in sensory words (e.g., "your heart beating faster and faster") and embedded suggestions (.e.g, "come inside", "penetrate", "surrender"). The principle is that while you are describing the process of "instantaneous connection", you are actually establishing a connection with her as she visualizes the experience. To men, it sounds corny, but women would respond positively to it.

Post: #22

@Sherman, I agree, imagination is the real prerequisite. Your choice of hottie may not have any, so that's another thing to calibrate. It also takes an environment where she's willing and able to give you her full attention.

I'd forgotten about Instantaneous Connection. The self point technique... it's coming back to me now.

More links:
http://www.pickupguide.com/layguide/p_iconnection.htm
http://mindpersuasion.com/seduction-patt...ttraction/

The problem with any routine is it takes practice to make it work, and you have to integrate a lot - eye contact, vocal tone, vocal emphasis & phrasing, body language, gestures. It's a lot to put together and pull off well. You can see that in action with the video and the interviewer trying it out - he stumbles a lot at first but eventually with some coaching does a decent job.

This thread is fun, it reminds me of first learning this stuff. I want to go try to apply this stuff a bit and see if I can get any mileage out of it.

Post: #23

@RockHard Thanks for the video, that's really interesting.
It's striking to see how blue pill Louis Theroux is in terms of women, even by the end, he still seems to think he is manipulating women, rather than offering them a chance to get to know him, and see where it goes.
It's pretty obvious half of those women thought he was either a street preacher, a chugger or a dodgy salesman.
What's interesting to notice as well is Jeffries is no poster boy, he sure could do with a style makeover, but he more than overcomes this with his presence, his vocal tonality and the focussed attention he gives each woman he meets.
Reminds me of that Clinton effect, where women would comment how he would make them feel like they were the only woman in the room (despite the room being full of women).

Post: #24

A lot of seduction coaches can take a C student and turn him into an A student. Ross is about the only coach who can take an F student and turn him into an A student.

Post: #25

(07-29-2014 03:14 PM)amity Wrote:  It's striking to see how blue pill Louis Theroux is in terms of women, even by the end, he still seems to think he is manipulating women, rather than offering them a chance to get to know him, and see where it goes.

Yeah, that's his internal frame. He sees himself as a guy with nothing to offer a woman, then he sees for himself that maybe he can induce these feelings in a woman and he's feeling like he's ripping her off, but he doesn't realize that feelings are 100% of what it takes to make a woman want to be with you. Your chiseled good looks might trigger feelings, your suit, your sweet motorcycle, your bulging biceps. What's freaky about the idea of someone like RJ being able to pull it off is that he does it with presence. People say "WTF? There's nothing there". There's nothing with that other stuff, but guys understand a guy with a lambo and a mansion, or a movie star, or a guy who's shredded, because they look and say, "well, he worked for that". Guys understand those markers. Girls don't really care. They'll take whatever induces those feelings.

I've never met Clinton, but I've heard the same thing. 1 on 1, the guy is supposedly amazingly present. I'm feeling like 80% of this is just voice & eye contact & body language. You could ask the blonde RJ chatted up and she probably wouldn't even remember what they talked about, but she remembers how it felt.