Post: #1

Occasionally I stumble upon social psychology experiments that involve getting numbers on the street, women rating men's attractiveness, etc. while systematically changing only one variable.

For instance, in one study, Group 1 approached girls on the street and asked for their number without any pre-amble. Group 2 approached girls on the street but asked for directions before asking for their number. Even with such a short pre-amble (no GALNUC or elderly ramble or anything), Group 1 got a much higher percentage of numbers than Group 2 did.

Or in another study, guys approached girls either with a sports bag or a guitar case. Guys with the guitar case got more numbers than guys with a sports bag.

While these may be obvious, the point is that these studies are out there, and there may be more useful ones out there as well.

So, does anyone know if there is a database or journal dedicated to these sorts of studies? What sort of keywords would you use etc?

Post: #2

(04-07-2015 05:19 PM)roc_student Wrote:  So, does anyone know if there is a database or journal dedicated to these sorts of studies? What sort of keywords would you use etc?

Yeah. You just posted for the first time in it.

I suggest you start reading.

HSLD

Post: #3

No doubt, this forum is extremely useful and full of wisdom.

However, anecdotal evidence (evidence gained from experience) cannot isolate cause and effect. Just because you get laid from trying a new tactic does not mean that the new tactic CAUSED your lay. Maybe the lay was caused by other factors, like being in a good mood or something.

But when a controlled experiment has dozens of guys approach with either a guitar case or a sports bag, and that's the ONLY difference, that's pretty solid evidence that the guitar case CAUSES their success.

I just think well-controlled scientific studies would be useful as a supplement to the anecdotal evidence found on this forum.

So if anybody knows any studies/journals, please share. If not, business as usual.

Post: #4

Read Heartiste - he has quite a few of them. The problem is that he talked with some researchers and they meet the academic wall of "freedom" sooner or later.

Most of those studies run counter to the feminist SJW gender-crap status quo and they are rather limited.

Could Game be studied scientifically in great detail? Of course, but not in the current scientific environment.

Heartiste even wrote about some studies done that were simply not published, since the university heads did not like the results and they appeared to be "sexist". So they rather shelved a study than to appear misogynist.

Currently Game is led forward by men around the world comparing notes, some guys writing books, others reaching out and getting new results expanding the current knowledge. Good studies are difficult to do, since there is so much going on in the seduction process.

Post: #5

There's a ton of them out there.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/category...ates-game/

Post: #6

(04-07-2015 05:19 PM)roc_student Wrote:  For instance, in one study, Group 1 approached girls on the street and asked for their number without any pre-amble. Group 2 approached girls on the street but asked for directions before asking for their number. Even with such a short pre-amble (no GALNUC or elderly ramble or anything), Group 1 got a much higher percentage of numbers than Group 2 did.

Numbers are worth very little these days. How many guys from both groups got laid as a result? How many girls gave the guys from the 1st group their numbers just to get rid of them and then never replied to texts? How many of these numbers were fake?

Post: #7

OP these studies are interesting but I wonder if you're trying to overintellectulize things and substitute reading for action.

Have you done 1000 approaches? If not, you should be approaching and your reading on Game should be limited to the basic techniques and female sexual psychology, not scholarly studies published in academic journals.

I do recommend Heartiste 2008-2011, though.

Post: #8

There's been some interesting controlled studies done with speed dating.

For example, the events where men sit and the women rotate from table to table, the women are more likely to desire the men, whereas, if the women stay put and the men do the moving, the women are less likely to desire the men.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an excellent article the discussed academic study of speed dating.

It also detailed game theory in relation to the marriage marketplace. Very interesting stuff that I'd be interested in pursuing if I had any desire to get a Ph.D. I don't.

Post: #9

Read Roosh's material.
He has a science background. In fact he was/is a Scientist professionally.
Arguably now as an anthropologist and he conducts his research with a good measure of scientific rigor.

Post: #10

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)Suits Wrote:  There's been some interesting controlled studies done with speed dating.

For example, the events where men sit and the women rotate from table to table, the women are more likely to desire the men, whereas, if the women stay put and the men do the moving, the women are less likely to desire the men.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an excellent article the discussed academic study of speed dating.

It also detailed game theory in relation to the marriage marketplace. Very interesting stuff that I'd be interested in pursuing if I had any desire to get a Ph.D. I don't.

If anyone of us would be designing a speed dating even he would do that:

1. Twice as many women - the ones who are not talking with any guy are waiting and looking
2. Let women come to men, while men wait
3. More alcohol - 2 glasses of wine minimum for the ladies before they even see the men
4. Tips for conversation - either some funny stuff, banter, avoid talking about job, profession, education, family etc.

Post: #11

(04-07-2015 06:57 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:19 PM)roc_student Wrote:  For instance, in one study, Group 1 approached girls on the street and asked for their number without any pre-amble. Group 2 approached girls on the street but asked for directions before asking for their number. Even with such a short pre-amble (no GALNUC or elderly ramble or anything), Group 1 got a much higher percentage of numbers than Group 2 did.

Numbers are worth very little these days. How many guys from both groups got laid as a result? How many girls gave the guys from the 1st group their numbers just to get rid of them and then never replied to texts? How many of these numbers were fake?

Great point, notches not numbers are what matters at the end of the day.

Post: #12

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions all.

Post: #13

Normally the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the best way to conduct research experiments. By randomly assigning subjects to two or more treatment groups, you can accurately isolate the effect of the treatment (e.g. the effect of two diets on weight gain).

The difference between the two treatments should be one variable, and with picking up girls that is impossible to control.

"Does muscularity affect female receptivity to a sexual invitation?"

Since you cannot use the same guy for both treatments, without months spent in the gym having passed, changing other variables as well, the treatments are also different in looks, body language, intonation and a million other small things.

You can pick 20 normal guys and 20 muscular guys, but they will be different on things like personality: what drives a guy to lift heavy weights will also affect other parts of his mind, life and experiences. That can subsequently influence the receptivity of the girl. In addition, it would necessitate vastly more approaches, meaning more time and money researchers don't have.

You could take 40 guys and randomly assign them to hitting the gym versus staying the same, and then conduct the experiment. Not realistic for obvious reasons.

You also have to measure the subjects afterwards, to make sure the groups are similar on average. That means collecting data on social standing, personality traits, promiscuity, ovulation cycle and a million other things you can't reasonably find out.

If instead you want to research something you can use the same guy for, like wearing a leather jacket or not, is the effect dependent on the guy and would different guys benefit from a different dress code?

TLDR: RVF data isn't so bad after all, since social sciences are rarely science at all.

P.S. I love to read the good studies in this field, don't get me wrong. And I think we're seeing more and more focus on the topic. But you have to understand what makes a rigorous research design and what doesn't.

Post: #14

(04-07-2015 06:57 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:19 PM)roc_student Wrote:  For instance, in one study, Group 1 approached girls on the street and asked for their number without any pre-amble. Group 2 approached girls on the street but asked for directions before asking for their number. Even with such a short pre-amble (no GALNUC or elderly ramble or anything), Group 1 got a much higher percentage of numbers than Group 2 did.

Numbers are worth very little these days. How many guys from both groups got laid as a result? How many girls gave the guys from the 1st group their numbers just to get rid of them and then never replied to texts? How many of these numbers were fake?

Sure, but getting scientific about the entire process would be very hard because you'd have to account for every variable in the interaction, level of game of each subject, exactly what is said at each stage, etc. That's next to impossible and it therefore makes more sense to isolate particular steps in the process, like getting a number.

Anyways, I don't think the OP is representing the guitar case example as a sure lay. It's an interesting finding nonetheless and a great idea for a thread, in my opinion.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #15

my hunch is that women get more aroused and the sex is better from approach as opposed to online.

Post: #16

(04-18-2015 06:37 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:57 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:19 PM)roc_student Wrote:  For instance, in one study, Group 1 approached girls on the street and asked for their number without any pre-amble. Group 2 approached girls on the street but asked for directions before asking for their number. Even with such a short pre-amble (no GALNUC or elderly ramble or anything), Group 1 got a much higher percentage of numbers than Group 2 did.

Numbers are worth very little these days. How many guys from both groups got laid as a result? How many girls gave the guys from the 1st group their numbers just to get rid of them and then never replied to texts? How many of these numbers were fake?

Sure, but getting scientific about the entire process would be very hard because you'd have to account for every variable in the interaction, level of game of each subject, exactly what is said at each stage, etc. That's next to impossible and it therefore makes more sense to isolate particular steps in the process, like getting a number.

Anyways, I don't think the OP is representing the guitar case example as a sure lay. It's an interesting finding nonetheless and a great idea for a thread, in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more. It's about breaking it into steps: doing whatever maximizes probability of a number (and a date), then at the date doing whatever maximizes probability of lay, then after that doing whatever maximizes probability of second lay, etc. (At any given stage it may require a different approach, for instance starting with elderly ramble vs. being forceful in the bedroom.)

Therefore, knowing what increases chance of getting a number IS useful. BUT I also see where you're coming from, Brodiaga, when you point out that numbers don't equal lays.

Post: #17

(04-18-2015 05:43 AM)sixsix Wrote:  Normally the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the best way to conduct research experiments. By randomly assigning subjects to two or more treatment groups, you can accurately isolate the effect of the treatment (e.g. the effect of two diets on weight gain).

The difference between the two treatments should be one variable, and with picking up girls that is impossible to control.

"Does muscularity affect female receptivity to a sexual invitation?"

Since you cannot use the same guy for both treatments, without months spent in the gym having passed, changing other variables as well, the treatments are also different in looks, body language, intonation and a million other small things.

You can pick 20 normal guys and 20 muscular guys, but they will be different on things like personality: what drives a guy to lift heavy weights will also affect other parts of his mind, life and experiences. That can subsequently influence the receptivity of the girl. In addition, it would necessitate vastly more approaches, meaning more time and money researchers don't have.

You could take 40 guys and randomly assign them to hitting the gym versus staying the same, and then conduct the experiment. Not realistic for obvious reasons.

You also have to measure the subjects afterwards, to make sure the groups are similar on average. That means collecting data on social standing, personality traits, promiscuity, ovulation cycle and a million other things you can't reasonably find out.

If instead you want to research something you can use the same guy for, like wearing a leather jacket or not, is the effect dependent on the guy and would different guys benefit from a different dress code?

TLDR: RVF data isn't so bad after all, since social sciences are rarely science at all.

P.S. I love to read the good studies in this field, don't get me wrong. And I think we're seeing more and more focus on the topic. But you have to understand what makes a rigorous research design and what doesn't.

I think I do understand what makes a rigorous research design and what doesn't. I run experiments myself. My whole point in posting was that I was wondering about proper RCTs (because it's the only way to really prove cause and effect). And the two studies I mentioned as examples were RCTs, weren't they?

I think your muscularity example is different from the guitar vs. sports bag study. In your muscularity example, it involves previously existing characteristics in the men that were there before the experiment even began. So as you say, there are a lot of extra variables they will bring to the table, such as being muscular and therefore being driven to begin with, etc.

But in the sports bag vs. guitar case, it WAS an RCT, was it not? You had two random groups of men, one was told to carry the guitar case, the other to carry the sports bag? That's it. That's the only difference between the men. Therefore the increased rate of numbers MUST be because of the guitar case. Cause and effect. How is that not an RCT?

Post: #18

(04-07-2015 08:13 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Read Roosh's material.
He has a science background. In fact he was/is a Scientist professionally.
Arguably now as an anthropologist and he conducts his research with a good measure of scientific rigor.

Totally, that's what got me interested in Roosh in the first place, is that he seems like the most systematic, logical, and concise writer on Game that I've encountered.

However, he is not conducting controlled experiments. He does something close to controlled experiments, by introducing only one new technique at a time, so he can isolate the variable to see if it's effective. However, because he is not using random assignment to groups, it technically could be his mood, or just his increased experience, that causes the success of a new technique, not the new technique himself.

Interestingly, Roosh himself wrote in Day Bang that "I’m typically skeptical of psychological studies". Does anyone know what are his reasons for this?

Post: #19

Cool topic. I was going to post on this thread a little bit earlier, but I've been dealing with baby mama drama, and trying to get into an accounting program so I can get extra classes to finally finish my CPA.

Anyway I think one of the things Roosh really gets right is that the best way to find the truth is though the use of the scientific method to produce data, as well as careful statistical analysis of that data. I also agree with others that you probably won't find too much academic research directly regarding pickup because of the feminist inquisition currently raging though North American campuses. Expect things to get much worse on that front as Hillary Clinton's election run approaches.

However luckily for you there's an entire field producing: directly applicable, scientifically tested, peer reviewed data on human interaction. That field is called Social Psychology. I'd sort though that goldmine first. After that if you have a background in statistics you can start running your own experiments; as well as empirically proving whether the principles you've tried to add to your game have actually improved your numbers. If you don't have a background in stats, then you can take a stats class at your local community college. If you absorb the material by the end you should be able to gather data, and statistically prove or disprove a hypothesis by using different methods of hypothesis testing.

Here are some major findings from Social Psychology that I've added to my game:

Misattribution of arousal - Basically fear and lust are interrelated. Remember that time you had approach anxiety when you saw that perfect 10? Remember that time that you were afraid for your physical well being? That sense of fear felt the same didn't it? It turns out that when someone is afraid and they are interacting with a member of the opposite sex their brain often construes that fear as being caused by lust. Making them more attracted to their potential mate.

Game application - Do something that scares her a little bit. The classic advice is take her to a scary movie which I don't think actually works. No one is too scared at the movies. My brother used to exploit this by taking his dates to a "rock gym" to go on the rock climbing wall right before he'd try to fuck them. I know another guy that worked at a theme park that could get people in for free. He'd take his dates on roller coasters, and often get laid. I have my own way to exploit this; you should find yours.


Cognitive Dissonance - The feeling that our actions should match our ideals/beliefs, and the mental pain that we feel when the actions we take don't match the beliefs we hold about ourselves and value systems. Remember feeling like shit after you bought your entitled date an expensive appetizer despite being on team #NoAppetizers? What you felt is cognitive dissonance.

Game Application - There's a lot of potential applications here. I'll give you one and let you do the reading and come up with other applications.

One recent example is when I had a college girl back at my place and she was talking about how hard she parties. Of course I wanted to get booze in her, and of course she wasn't born yesterday. She knows that heavy drinking, alone, at some guys house leads to banging. And she didn't want to bang on the first date. So when I initially offered her she declined. Then I started teasing her about the fact that she said she liked to party but didn't want to drink. We ended up playing drinking games and I got the flag an hour later. So if you know something about how a woman sees herself you can use cognitive dissonance to manipulate her.

Using Cognitive Dissonance in Reverse - Again people like to believe their actions reflect their ideals. But we don't always work like that. Sometimes people impulsively do stupid things that go against their ideals, and feel the mental discomfort [cognitive dissonance]. In order to stop that mental discomfort people resort to rationalization [hamstering] to explain their actions away.

Game Application- If you're trying to close the deal and getting LMR understand that it's do or die time and you probably won't get a second chance. This is especially true if you're close to getting the flag.

This is because a woman who is giving you any type of serious LMR doesn't want to see herself as a slut. She's going to have to justify her actions afterwards. If she sleeps with you the easiest way to justify her actions is by telling herself that you're different and she banged you because she really liked you. If she doesn't bang you, but messes around with you she's going to silence the hamster by telling herself that she really didn't want to sleep with you anyway [sour grapes]. And if she sleeps with you, but you treat her like absolute shit; she may justify sleeping with an "asshole" [from her pov] by telling herself that you raped her, and she really want to have sex.

I have more theories from social psychology that I use. I'll type them up later. Also this is a good jumping off point to get basic theoretical overviews which you can do more in depth research on elsewhere.