Post: #26

(02-06-2015 07:14 PM)Apollo21 Wrote:  It's essentially a trade off...the higher up the scale you go, the more difficult it becomes to
hookup with 8 and 9's due to a variety of factors. However the logistics are the same for a 5,6,7,8 or 9.

I think the biggest crime though is setting your sights too low consistently and never improving your situation to get better girls.

Sorry, but that right there, is a crime against Game.

Most real players will tell you that 8-9s are a little easier to game than the 5-7s who are getting approached more(because the average guy is scared of rejection, has false idea of 'out of my league').

Also, confidence, and self-belief, are self-perpetuating forces. The more confident you get(from getting out of your comfort zone and approaching the hottest girls), the more bangs you get, the easier it becomes to go in to situations you wouldn't have previously entered in to. When you have sexually dominated one woman, doing the same to another is a lot easier. The successful players here keep the momentum going because they appreciate the value of 'keep on keeping on'.

Yes, logistics are the same, they are generally not context dependent but situation dependent, the actual approach and application of Game varies across the 1-10 scale. Yes, I know that the 1-10 scale is bullshit from some perspectives, but at the very least it provides us with a vague guide.

Post: #27

Once you've polished your skills...the primary challenge in scoring 8 and 9's will
come down to strategy...since "higher quality" girls are fewer in number, highly desired
and tend to form relationships easily.

As a result I think the biggest crime is not continuously and aggressively
building your social network...it's the only true advantage you have when access
to "high quality" women is becoming more and more dependent on social circles
and professional connections.

Post: #28

(01-16-2015 11:50 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I got a laundry list, but probably violate most of them myself.

Guys are wedded to their pet theories and world views and rarely seem to take into account contradictory evidence. It's human, but if you're trying to convey something to a reader, you'd think they would take a step back.

I agree. There are many people in the world much smarter than myself (as a pure function of IQ, let's say) that I vehemently disagree with on various topics (let's say politics). No matter how logical and based in fact their arguments are, if I don't agree with the premise then it's very easy and natural for me to start picking it apart and eventually concluding that it's completely illogical. If that person saw my counter-arguments, he'd similarly claim that they are wrong and illogical. On the other hand, if I read theories that concur with my world view, I'll naturally start to appreciate the logical flow and soundness of what I'm reading, and chuckle under my breath about how stupid some people are that they don't get it. How can this be? It's a cycle that most people get caught up in all the time for various reasons, and leads to stagnation.

I'm always impressed by a guy that can emotionally detach himself from his opinions and try to see it from different angles. No one can do this perfectly, myself included, but when I see a guy stating opinion as fact it immediately signals to me that he's an idiot. The worst mistake you can make is trying to argue with these guys. If I see that I disagree with someone, I'll try to be evenhanded in responding (if I decide to respond at all) which is more about suggesting possible holes in a given argument without making it seem like you have an underlying agenda that will make the other person get defensive. My goal is just to have an interesting conversation, rather than a debate. The "underlying agenda" for the average person is usually proving that he is completely right whereas you are completely wrong. Each "argument" becomes a verbal manifestation of feelings and gut reactions which masquerade under the guise of logic. It leaves both people having the same mirror image of the other which is that the other guy is an idiot, illogical, and doesn't get it. Worse yet, it makes both people get more entrenched and invested in whatever viewpoint they were arguing.

Better to have strong opinions held loosely and not stop the natural evolution of your world view with a fragile ego that can't handle the pain of being wrong.