Post: #1

Hey so they actually did a study on indirect vs direct day game approaches. I know its a debate thats always raging on in Pickup circles and there's good arguments for both sides. But in this actual study turns out that indirect came out on top. But I wonder what the explanation is. Anyone of you want to take a stab at it?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...tting-date

Post: #2

I would be all for indirect but the first question (Hello, I'm sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you were busy now. If not, we could have a drink together if you have some time) is more direct-indirect or even horribly executed direct. Hell, the sorries and the ifs imply its indirect. When you are direct you have to lead.

Post: #3

Execution aside, the result seems like a slam dunk to me. 3% for direct vs 15% for indirect. With better execution the numbers would be higher.

But given the current status of my game, I'll take that 15% with poor execution any day!

Post: #4

Eh, totally depends on the situation. If you are in a coffee shop, definitely run indirect. If you are in line at a check out of a whole foods, you don't have time to run indirect. Ask her about whats in her cart to get her attention, then I ask her out.

FWIW, russian grocery marts exist in bigger cities, but probably places like whole foods and other high end grocers are going to be better overall for daygame.

College campuses, yeah, you can get a conversation going with indirect game, then run galnuc.

Post: #5

I stopped reading when I saw that his opening line was" I'm sorry to bother you."

Post: #6

I have a couple of thoughts.

This was in France so it could be that the line doesn't sound as bad in French as it does translated. People who game in multiple languages know this-- some phrases sound terrible in one language and good in another.

It makes a persuasive point that bad, inexperienced indirect day game is better than bad, inexperienced direct day game. This may not be the case for those with >500 or even >100 approaches and have gotten good at this.

This is also almost more testing the efficacy of the Ben Franklin effect rather than direct-vs indirect game.

Post: #7

(03-22-2015 04:39 AM)FoxRocks Wrote:  I have a couple of thoughts.

This was in France so it could be that the line doesn't sound as bad in French as it does translated. People who game in multiple languages know this-- some phrases sound terrible in one language and good in another.

Yeah - the text is not so bad - they likely translated "Excusez moi" with "I'm sorry" which frankly does not cut it - with that phrase in French you are anything but sorry. It's more akin to "Pardon me, mam", though that's no longer in use much in the US.

Quote:Direct Request: "Hello, I'm sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you were busy now. If not, we could have a drink together if you have some time."

Small Favor First: "Hello, I'm sorry to bother you but would you have a light for my cigarette?" (Or, "Hello, I'm sorry to bother you but I am looking for the Place de Liberation.")

If the woman gave the light or directions, the man responded, "Thank you very much. Are you busy now? If not, we could have a drink together, if you have some time."

If she did not have a lighter or directions, the man responded, "It doesn't matter. Are you busy now? If not, we could have a drink together, if you have some time."

Results of the experiment indicated that women were significantly more likely to agree to a date after first providing directions or a light for the man's cigarette—while only 3.3% of women agreed to an immediate date directly, 15% agreed to a date after providing a light and 15.8% agreed after giving directions. These percentages were generally the same for all three men making the various requests. Therefore, making the small request first did indeed increase the women's willingness to go on a date—much as the FITD effect works in other influence situations.

Frankly both approaches are pretty direct, but the first one is inefficient and even direct Daygamers hardly ever use that, because you did not go through the attraction process at all and just go for the instant date and number in the first phrase. That is just bad Game.

But alas - it's good that scientists somewhere are testing something - they should hire consultants like Dr. she-cums-loudly Krauser, Roosh as well as other guys out there to enlighten them on how to run really efficient tests. Seems like they are reinventing the wheel there.

If they continue like that, then it will take decades before they are at the current Game level taught by the top guys in the field.

So essentially it's not what we here would call Indirect Game. Both are Direct Game, but the first opener was just bad Game and more akin to a way-too-fast Hail-mary than anything else. He is asking for an instant date in the bloody first sentence. If that shit worked, then Krauser's books would be 2 pages long and Roosh's 3-4. Even the second opener was very fast - they likely achieved such high success results by letting a very good looking guy do it. 15% agreed to an instant date with such below-par very fast openers? They may have hired a male model there.

Post: #8

Another highly scientific take on game

Ok they proved obvious fact that buying some time first is more effective than pulling the trigger right away. However from actual game standpoint both methods are still highly inconsistent to say the least [1st way = blowout frenzy, 2nd way = too big shift of vibe too soon].

Post: #9

It seems to me they did it this way (such a quick move to instadate) in order to control other variables. Once the interaction goes longer than two minutes, all kinds of other elements come into play (guy's skill, direction of the conversation etc etc.)

I haven't read the entire study, but it could be that they hypothesise to have these proportions reflected in longer interactions.

As in 10% number close with direct, 50% number close with indirect in situations where the pickup attempt is less rushed (retaining the x5 relationship). Then of course you'd need another study to analyse how many of those numbers mean anything. I'd rather the 10% direct approach success rate than the flake prone 50% indirect numbers.