For some reason I bumped on this blog by Jakob Bachman:
http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2010/02/pua-scam.html
and I can already tell.... I love the guy. He has some more monster posts on that blog that are worth a read, but I don't have time for it at the moment. Am pretty excited though, I'll tell you that.
Here's a quick article from his blog. It's basically number 15 (Game is a myth) from the 15 lessons I learned from 2011.
PUA Methods Create Little Attraction If At All
If someone appears more successful using PUA methods it is because those methods got them out of their "shell", so to speak. It is like a placebo effect, or like drinking lots of alcohol, where it gets you to take risks and do things you normally wouldn't (such as approach a lot). But at least with alcohol no one says that it's the alcohol that makes you more attractive to women, it's what the alcohol got you to do that made you more attractive. PUA methods at best create a variety of delivery paths for your personality, which can bring out your personality more. But it's like training wheels, basically, and that's assuming it doesn't fuck you up in the process, which it usually does.
Probably the most useful PUA concept that has any measurable validity is the concept of social proof. It is true that if girls see you as a popular guy from a distance, your attractiveness will increase a bit in their eyes. But this is in addition to you already looking attractive to them, appearance wise, and then the social proof will help a bit. But those same girls also have to be receptive to meeting you for anything to happen. I've been in many situations where I had social proof (i.e. I was chatting up women and even occasionally making out with one of them), but other girls in that environment still acted indifferent towards me. At most they would look at me with curiosity and even some jealousy, but nothing more than that would happen. Time and time again I would see that socializing with the ladies (and even the men) almost always did nothing to help me hook up with other females in that particular environment (e.g. bar or club). Furthermore, I also made a habit of observing other guys who appeared socially proofed. For example, maybe they were with their hot girl friends or appeared very social and outgoing. I still didn't see them receive significantly more attention from other women than the guy who is just standing in a corner by himself. At most they would get looks from girls, and maybe a small amount of opportunity would present itself that wouldn't otherwise, but other than that social proof is hardly the powerful thing it's made out to be. And in my mind the reason for that is this: Girls need to be receptive to meeting men in that environment otherwise nothing works. You can be attractive, socially proofed, outgoing, preselected and none of that will matter in that environment if the women are not open to meeting men. And the irony is, if in the presence of social proof you are successful then you will also be successful without social proof, meaning that the women in that environment are receptive to meeting men.
Attraction and the desire to act on that attraction BOTH need to be present for social proof to work. And attraction itself is generated by a combination of your looks, mannerisms, and how you speak. This is independent of the use of PUA methods, excluding the placebo effect of course.
DHV doesn't work either. And neither does qualifying, negging, push/pull, cocky & funny, and NLP. At most these things can enhance attraction and/or interest a bit but they are completely ineffectual with women who have zero interest in getting to know you. And if a woman doesn't want to get to know you it is practically impossible to change that since it is something entirely within her own control and not yours, something PUAs don't like to hear.
I TOTALLY disagree with Jakob's theory.In other words,he might as well advocate going back to an AFC lifestyle.That was a bullshit-ass post bro.People need to realize that we all use game and routines.The average guy,player/natural who knows nothing if the community,they use all the stuff we do.They just don't know it,nor do they have a formula they can explain.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point. It's not the routines/techniques that create the attraction, but the person that's using them (YOU). The routines/techniques are just a form of communicating your personality, which can be communicated by boring ass conversation too.
ReplyDeleteIt's why this blogpost illustrates my point that game is a myth. Girls already like you for you. Not because you spit amazing game.
Ask any girl that you game successfully afterwards this question: "When did you first realize you were attracted to me?"
The answer for me was always the same: "As soon as I met you."
The cool thing about this is, that with the girls that are really into you, it doesn't matter how badly you screw up, they'll still like you. They'll put up with it, because they like you so much.
The other side of the coin is that woman that don't like you, will never like you. No matter what you do.
p.s. Not sure what you mean by the AFC lifestyle, if you mean being needy, clingy, insecure, etc, then that's NOT what I'm talking about here.
Bro,this article is basically telling me that routines an game isn't necesary to attract.That's BS.When I had no game,no skills at pick up,I obviously didn't get far.Since learning this,I've gotten far and beyond.So is Jakob saying pick up didn't work for me?
ReplyDeleteI guess we agree on a lot of things, except for this haha, it's okay.
Delete"Routines and game isn't necesary to attract".
That's exactly what he says, and I concur.
It's not the routines and game that she's attracted to, but it's just "you".
And by "you", I mean your overall presence, vibe, confidence, etc. I know these are all vague terms thrown around a lot, but it's the best that I can describe it.
These are various things
- Body language (stood up straight, take up space, smiling, etc).
- The way you walk and move throughout the room.
- The way you react to things happening around you.
- The way you look around (fast, dodgy, and your eyes going all over the place, or slow, deliberate, and your eyes making eye contact and knowing where to look).
This is the best way I can describe presence.
And yes, fashion/style and physical characteristics are also a factor whether she likes "you" or not.
Look at it this way, the basic fact that you BELIEF in the routines and "game" is what makes you seem confident and sure of yourself. This is what's attractive and what she's attracted to.
Hey if you are interested in more fantastic anti-game sites check-out seductionmyth.com and aleknovy.com (the second is not entirely about game but has TONS of great anti-game stuff)
ReplyDeleteThe comments at seducionmyth are absolutely a must read!!!
Its more though - confidence is NOT what is attractive. Its not a factor. Its your look and unalterable personality. Confidence will just make you approach and act socially normal, but is not what creates sexual attraction per se. NO BEHAVIOR can create sexual attraction per se.
ReplyDeleteGuys who get more confident and then improve their sex lives simply approached more and were socially normal around girls (were able to display their natural personality), so girls who liked their *type* were now able to act on their attraction. Such guys then wrongly conclude that the increase in confidence is what CAUSED the sexual attraction. Its a classic case of correlation being mistaken for causation. The confidence merely allowed them to approach and be socially comfortable, thus giving girls who already liked them a chance to hook up with them.
All this stuff is discussed in wonderful detail - with references to lots of scientific studies and evolutionary psychology - over at seductionmyth.com
As long as you still buy into the confidence CREATES attraction nonsense you are still in gamer la la land.
That's weird. I agree with you, yet you don't agree with me. What's going on here?
DeleteI think that the things I described (body language, etc), are what I see as being part of your personality.
I too agree that woman have certain archetypes that they're attracted to, and by simply meeting more woman, you'll get more success.
Will be checking out that site.
p.s. I'm not really anti-game, there's A LOT of useful stuff to learn. But like anything that's not a science, there's also a lot of crap information out there.
I know your not anti-game...yet ;) All us ex-gamers went through the *most of game is bullshit but there is still a lot of good stuff in it* phase before finally making a clean and total break with game once and for all. You exit game in stages. And you seem to have good anti-bullshit detectors so it is only a matter of time.....
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you agree with me that behavior cannot create sexual attraction, then you pretty much are anti-game - game is basically the idea that what you DO (act *alpha*) makes women sexually attracted to you. Once you realize that is a myth, you can relax and be yourself, and the focus shifts to learning how to notice and respond to signs of female attraction, while showing interest yourself in a non-antagonistic way. Its a completely different skill set from game and is pretty much just basic, normal social skills like you would do with your guy buddies.
Anyways read the site and come to your own conclusions. Every man realizes game is bullshit at his own pace. Feel free to ask any questions or make any comment too....lots of people on the site to answer you.
Oh, and Aaron Sleazy *minimal game* is also a very good sane alternative to game. (he uses the word game just to reel people in, but its not really game)
I guess we define game differently. I see game as learning about woman. Also the mere act of approaching, escalating, and generally just taking action and not being a little bitch, are things I define as "game".
DeleteBut maybe you're right... referring that stuff to as "game", instead of basic human interaction is actually shooting myself in the foot. I'm disconnecting from what is considered normal in society.
Thx man, will check out Aaron Sleezy.. that name sounds really familiar, and I remember him having good stuff to say. But I can't remember what... hrm...