Sunday, December 9, 2012

Why you suck with women

Badger explains it for the STEM guys in the comments:
I think this is a big reason STEM guys are predisposed to be extremely bad with women. They (we TBH) live in a logically-scaffolded world where words, phrases and ideas have very concrete and stable meanings from day to day and environment to environment. It seems that is just not at all the way most women's worlds work, and we resent the guys who are good with women because we see them as having no cognitive integrity, having nothing of which we value. It's also a reason Game can be so dramatically effective for STEM-type guys - once you make them realize how different it is, and train them to swim in that emotional swamp, they can become very good at it because they are by definition very skilled and disciplined.
The key phrase is "nothing of which we value".  Despite the differing contexts, this is no different than the mistake that the Marxians make with the labor theory of value.  All value is subjective.  This is both a logically deduced and empirically observed fact.

Women don't value cognitive integrity.  Nor do most men.  So, it is not only self-defeating, it is illogical to behave in a manner assuming they do.  (See what I did there, STEM guy?  Stings a little, doesn't it. BAZINGA!) The point is that it is not only a complete waste of time to expect women to appreciate cognitive integrity, let alone be attracted to it, it is foolish to expect it from them.

Furthermore, and this is vital, their perspective is entirely legitimate in terms of human action. Moral integrity is a moral issue, cognitive integrity is not. While one may wish to utilize cognitive integrity as a display of dominance, (after all, it is child's play to make someone look a fool when they are willing to openly contradict themselves on the basis of their current emotional state), one should not feel bound to it when communicating with anyone, male or female, who neither respects nor values it.

47 comments:

Matthew Walker said...

See also, conservatives talking indignantly about the Constitution as if it were a law of nature and as if oaths to uphold and defend it were enforceable.

Heh said...

Ironically enough, I was raised by STEM people and went to a STEM university, and I can tell you from vast experience that STEM people, including the men, DO NOT act like Vulcans whose every thought, word, and action is guided solely by cold logic. They are as guided by emotion as anyone else, and can be swayed by rhetorical appeals to emotion as easily as anyone else.

Indeed, they have a lot of emotion invested in their belief "we are more logical and intelligent than other people". If that belief is not true, they're just a bunch of unpopular dorks, heh heh.

The Outsider said...

This is an area where the STEM guys, and everybody else really, might benefit from reading a little Daniel Kahneman on the topic of how we decide. The fact is, we're disposed to do whatever it is we want, and the explanation comes after. Women are of course notorious for this (i.e., the rationalization hamster), but we all do it to one degree or another.

Game is all about making her want to as opposed to explaining to her why she *should* want to.

In other words, STEM guys, there is a logical basis for all this; it's just not the one you might have thought.

Anonymous said...

Actually, that's my sticking point.
I am one of those STEM guys and I am having huge problems with building a rapport with girls.
Attraction and escalation are fine, but I just cannot get into their heads.
Any idea how to learn that? (courses, videos, books?)

Athor Pel said...

You don't want to get into their heads. There is no there there. It is not a place you want to explore because it is a place you left when you found out Santa wasn't real and you accepted that you weren't going to be an astronaut.

Remember when you were little and how easily you were led around by your emotions? How your parents directed your attention by appealing to your sense of play or wonder? That's where women live, in their emotions. They can play play play all day long and not feel guilty about it.

They are captive to those emotions even when they reach adulthood. Their prefrontal cortex doesn't have the same kind of veto power that a man's does. It takes lunch breaks, in fact it goes on hiatus for extended periods.

Once you figure out how to play with their emotions it becomes way too easy to surf those emotions.

Here's the deal, don't react to her, provoke her. I don't mean make her mad, I mean direct her emotions where you want them to go. Make her react to you. Your frame, all the time. But make it fun sometimes or she'll think you're boring. Boring means divorce.

Now, how does it feel to be a babysitter?




VD said...

They are as guided by emotion as anyone else, and can be swayed by rhetorical appeals to emotion as easily as anyone else.

Totally true. But the emotional triggers are different.

facepalm said...

That's not the failure, the failure is not upholding the standard. People don't have to conform to it absolutely, but it needs to be upheld as an ideal. Logic, consistency, submission to a universal standard is what makes men superior to women and why we aren't shitting in the woods anymore.

"Understanding" is not the issue. Anyone can see women will twist and contort meanings to avoid accountability. Dogs will bite strangers if you allow them to. But if you expect them to live within our civilization peacefully and productively you have to domesticate them. You have to make them conform to our standards, not the other way around.

It's ironic that game, as it's come to be understood around here tells us to lead women, yet what you're arguing for is the acceptance of wild behaviour on their part. It works in the short term, but in the long term that's what's gotten us in this mess.

That's really the problem with game. It asks nothing of women, it gives average men a modicum of success given the status quo. And the status quo is a broken and dilapidated system in which women's irrational instincts rule and reward the top few percent of men with a superabundance of female attention, while the rest wallow in loneliness.

What's really illogical is to promote game while lamenting the decline of our civilization. Game is accelerating the decline because it takes the status quo as a given and works within it. Adaptation is not the answer. Moral and illectual consistency is related. People don't often rationalize away a moral good, but they do rationalize away evil actions.

taterearl said...

Or take criticism...when you criticize a man for his work, he takes it as needing to improve his work but most of the he is still a well functioning human being and doesn't take it personally.

You criticize a woman about her work....you are criticizing her and she does take it personally. Which is why "this is not about attacking you as a person, but a way to help you become better" is a good starting point.

Badger said...

"Indeed, they have a lot of emotion invested in their belief "we are more logical and intelligent than other people". If that belief is not true, they're just a bunch of unpopular dorks, heh heh."

That's part of my point - beta geeks resist game in part because they are highly invested in a deterministic, logical pattern to the world, which makes it extremely difficult to adapt to something like game. It takes a lot to break that worldview. More than once on her blog, Susan Walsh has been totally incredulous at the idea that most men can't simply observe relationship patterns in the world and throw away the decades of deep (and deeply flawed) programming they were raised in. She and others need to understand how deeply we were taught to be invested in these false mindsets, in many cases by women we loved and trusted (mothers, teachers, sisters, girlfriends who left us for our chumpitude). That's why most guys can't just jump from AFC to "light game" without swinging the pendulum over towards the PUA side of things for a bit. (If chicks get to "make a few mistakes with alphas" before they go looking for Mr Right, I don't see what's wrong with Billy Beta gaming a few girls before coming back to his relationship-oriented roots. The Prodigal Son didn't get a lot of shaming as I recall.)

I admit I am projecting a bit from my own personal journey, but there's a lot of overlap between the STEM mindset in an academic/professional sense and the Mr Nice Guy/covert contract/be a team player and you'll be rewarded kind of mindset, also with the betatized-church-guy who thinks God will provide and he doesn't need to learn to swing with the icky darker parts of female psychology.

These are the kind of guys who are completely flummoxed when a woman decides she doesn't have to hold up her end of a fairly-agreed upon bargain. Going one step further, women have abdicated the family social contract that built western civilization, yet they've been able to fool lots of men into behaving as if it still existed.

asdf said...

"All value is subjective"

Slow down buddy. You are making a very big philosophical statement. Your basically rejecting Christianity here.

"Moral integrity is a moral issue, cognitive integrity is not."

Cognitive integrity is an important part of moral integrity. Moral rules that make no sense and contradict each other will be hard/pointless to follow.

"What's really illogical is to promote game while lamenting the decline of our civilization. Game is accelerating the decline because it takes the status quo as a given and works within it."

Yes. Game, without a traditional concept in which to practice it, is little more then a more efficient way to sin. It works, but at what cost.

Badger said...

"In other words, STEM guys, there is a logical basis for all this; it's just not the one you might have thought."

Exactly...once I read some game material and put it together with my life experiences to that point, women were easy to understand. Since then I've scoffed in the face of guys who tell me women are hard to understand. What they can't do is bring themselves to apply new models to the way they think women work.

Thing is, because of my programming, it was morally "bad" to think women weren't virtuous angels of God's creation but instead motivated by ugly base urges. It's a bit like having an argument with someone who keeps saying "you don't understand," and I have to say "no - I DO understand, I just don't agree with your opinion, yet you think that if I understood I would have to agree, so if I don't agree, it must be because I don't understand."

David deAngelo had a great riff in his Double Your Dating book where he said something like "men have this concept of honor and commitment to logical things - ideas, stances, agreements with others. Women have an analogous commitment to their own emotional system, to whether something 'feels' right." He explained this is what causes the wholesale mind-changing for which women have long been famous. I suppose this gets to the Fifth Horseman's assertion that women tend to believe what makes them feel good, what resolves emotional dissonance.

Anonymous said...

"Remember when you were little and how easily you were led around by your emotions? How your parents directed your attention by appealing to your sense of play or wonder? That's where women live, in their emotions. They can play play play all day long and not feel guilty about it."

That's STEM-guys problem. We are not too emotional, 95% of decisions in my life were based on cold logic.
It's quite difficult now to initiate those emotions in someones else.
Can you give more info at those emotional triggers?

Martel said...

Facepalm: "What's really illogical is to promote game while lamenting the decline of our civilization. Game is accelerating the decline because it takes the status quo as a given and works within it. Adaptation is not the answer."

Game accepts the status quo, but accepting reality is our only hope of changing it.

The way I word it for myself, I accept but will never acquiesce.

What should be and what is are both of vital importance and reflect their respective aspects of Truth. One can never forget either. To ignore "what is" in favor of "what should be" is the best way to endure "what should be" remains in the realm of fantasy.

I accept Game not because I like the status quo but because I despise it. I simply recognize that as an impotent beta I render my moral code irrelevant to damn near everybody but myself.

Game teaches me the ugly truths of human interaction and how to manipulate those truths to best advantage. How one uses Game after one masters it is a relevant but entirely different issue.

In short: The Pretty Lies must die for the Beautiful Truths to bloom.

Soga said...

@Anonymous @ Dec 9. 2012, 10:32 AM

Pick a name. This is the last time I will respond to an Anonymous post.

I'm a STEM guy too, but Game taught me quite a bit about dealing with girls, so I think I'm somewhat qualified to help you out here. My advice for you is to turn off or put your brain into a "low-power" state. Stop analyzing and overthinking things. That's what kills you in the field.

I know that women respond to me better when I do something like that. I just let my nature as a man take over. I turn off the part of my brain that's constantly thinking about STEM things like software programming. The only things I let run through my mind are mnemonics from Game I've prepared mentally to help guide my natural behavior with women.

Rule #1: FRAME, FRAME, FRAME. It's about frame. The date/relationship goes my way when I control the frame. She's smiling, laughing, and touching me when I'm leading her around to different venues and when I'm leading the conversation. When I give up the frame to her, my balls turn blue. In other words, I made out with her because I took her on a date, went for a walk after that, and ended up sitting on a bench beneath the night stars with her head in my lap, and then made the move. I didn't ask her questions, I didn't ask for permission, I didn't expect anything logical. I just let my nature as a man take over.

RULE #2: Drop the STEM crap. Girls ain't interested. You're not interested when she discusses woman problems or gossips about the neighbors or her wardrobe. She's not going to be interested in man problems like how to crack a mathematical equation. You're there to be a man to a woman, not to be an uncool nerd. If she asks what you do for a living, be generic. I'm a computer programmer, but I just say that I'm an engineer. Programmer sounds too nerdy, but there are many non-nerds in engineering, so that's a pretty tame one to describe yourself as being.

RULE #3: Kino escalation. Start with small touches (e.g. on the back of the shoulder), and work your way up to more intimate touching (e.g. closing with a kiss). Women LOVE that.

RULE #4: Just have fun. The important thing is to be a fun person, which makes you interesting to women.

Tom98a said...

@Soga
Hint with Engineer sounds useful - will keep in mind.

You did not mention any emotional side of things. Are you deliberately running any routines/trying to stir emotions?

Soga said...

@Tom98a:

My bad. Yes, I try to stir emotions (without seeming overly emotional myself, of course). One thing that comes easy to me is being funny, so I don't have any trouble getting her to laugh. One good technique for stirring up emotions is storytelling. Don't just drone it out, present it in a gripping manner. It's also great to keep her guessing. But if storytelling isn't really your forte, there are other things you can do.

But yes, that's generally what you want to do: keep stirring a sense of mystery in her. The less predictable you are (or rather, the more suspenseful you are), the more she's intrigued by you. So create suspense, mess with her head, give her silly answers to questions. She'll act outraged (blatantly faked, of course), so it falls to you to play "innocent" ("Who me? Never!" *grin*).

You don't have to do things exactly like that, but that's what I do, and it seems to work.

Tom98a said...

@Soga

Ok. Story telling is not my thing, but I am good with teasing.

What I normally do:
- constantly teasing her (they giggle a lot) and treating her like my little bratty sister (allows some kino, like pulling hairs)
- some light kino (light touching), when I am going for kiss i use Mystery routine
- 2-3 verbal sexualization per date (like 'your hairs smell nice')
- watch over my body language and make sure I lean back 90% of time - I have heard 'you are laid back' few times recently
- make sure I speak slowly and giving pregnant pause
- drop some DHV stories from time to time (usually travels, rare sexualization)
- lots of bouncing (like 3 venues per date)
- try to schedule next date near my place (I have bad logistics)

I got into LTR (STR really) before I really had a chance with testing it, thus I am unsure of results.

Would you add something more to that?
What do you do to add mystery? Like skipping parts of story (and make it obvious those are skipped))?

Jack Amok said...

Seems to me this is just another example of the all-too-common human failing of assuming everybody else is just like you and values everything the same as you or else there's something wrong with them.

Famous examples:

-Incipient crazy-spinster-cat ladies who are confused and angry that the alpha men with impressive careers they are attracted to don't appreciate the women's own career accomplishments.

-Beta orbiters who don't understand why the hot chicks they orbit don't respond to kindness, help and emoitional support.

-third-rate grade school teachers who are pissed that "society" isn't willing to pay more for glorified babysitters.

-Warming-mongers and other eco chicken-littles who think you're evil if you don't panic about what they panic about, and never stop to think that people might actually be net happier if more of the world resembled Hawaii.

Soga said...

@Tom98a:

It seems like you're doing all right with attraction. What gets me, though, is trying to balance the Game (alpha) approach with some beta to get a LTR rolling. I'm not an expert of Game, so I'm actually still calibrating my methods to strike that right balance. It seems to me like bedding women (in America) would be really easy if I put my mind to it, but I take moral issue with sex outside of marriage, so I don't let myself do that. It's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation: if you Game a girl too hard, I think you end up in hookup territory. If you don't Game a girl enough, she's not interested enough in you for even a LTR. It's a hard situation I find myself in, so I sort of get what you're going through.

As for adding mystery in storytelling, I omit details and try to get her to guess things about me. Sometimes, I drop a "What did you think happened next?" and I'd give her a few tries at guessing. Essentially, I make a game out of the storytelling. The point is to get her emotionally involved in your story, and a great way to do that is to have some audience participation.

Tom98a said...

@Soga,


Try Married Max Sex Life blog - it proposes two scales separately for alpha and beta. You are lover AND provider.
I tend to agree with that approach.

As for hookup territory - I think its easy to get from there to LTR - you already have broken the seal. It's girl that should be interested in LTR now.

I am based in London and you really need tight game to meet quality girl - there are tons of PUA-es on the street and even more guys in clubs.
To get dates here you need to approach like monkey or be rich/good looking. Once on date it's ok.

Will try this guess-about-me approach.

Heh said...

"That's STEM-guys problem. We are not too emotional, 95% of decisions in my life were based on cold logic."

I guarantee this is not true.

But you are emotionally invested in the idea that you are coldly logical and not too emotional.

Christina said...

Clicked over from EW...

STEM girl married to STEM guy. I am largely ruled by emotion, though I've mastered some coping mechanisms that I use when I'm not to tired to discipline myself.

What VD said, that emotional triggers are different? I'd suggest they are not. It's just that your emotional response to the trigger is "How stupid does someone need to be to be manipulated by this?" Really, you were emotionally provoked by it, but your logical brain took over and informed you you were being manipulated, leading you to the aggressive and inflammatory thought as opposed to wiping away the tear...

Stop seeing those triggers as "stupid people only" and see how you can use those to your advantage.

I can't really offer any advice on how a STEM guy can get a girl (even a STEM girl). I'm not the average Mary Jane - and if I had been, everything he did would have completely passed me by. More like I took a shot in the dark...and so did he...and the risk that could've ended up in bruised egos galore managed to reap a hefty bounty.

Jestin Ernest said...

here's a major stepping stone for the STEM guys:
you're looking at feminine behavior back-to-front.

as a STEM personality, you view reality as rules based and with seriously constrained outcomes given 'x' starting conditions and 'y' procedural possibilities within 't' time constraints.

outcomes which result in excessive costs for the given result are discarded as pointless or counter productive and are never even attempted. functionally, this is where 'morals' and 'standards' come into play.

this is exactly the opposite of how most women ( and a disturbing number of men, errr, males in modern society ) function.

to the effeminate mind you FIRST decide what you want the outcome to be. damn the costs.

THEN you implement scenarios with the goal of inducing compliance or agreement in your local peer group that will result in your desired endpoint. often, this will be a multi-stage process, getting agreement for a relaxation of standards or principles at several different times and in several different directions. by the time the group has gone through the iteration ~ 1/2 dozen times the originally desired result will achieve 'inevitability' within the arc of social constraints that the group has been following.

any 'excessive costs' incurred by this course of action will be attempted to be offset onto innocent bystanders or even the entrained cohorts which were manipulated into this course of action by the instigator.

this is why we 'must' fund Social Security.

this is how the Federal Reserve gets away with endless quantitive easing.

this is why we 'must' not only allow women in the military but we 'must' deploy them to front line combat positions.

this is why we 'must' legalize homosexual marriage.

this is how EL James gets off castigating everyone around her for characterizing her writing as mommy porn.

this is why we 'must NOT' impeach Supreme Court Justices who flagrantly violate their oath to uphold and enforce the Constitution.

many, MANY superficially confusing things happening in modern politics, economics, philosophy, gender relations, theology, etc resolve quite easily once you grasp how the effeminate mind functions.


just to throw the women a bone ( not that there'd be a dirty pun in there ), i actually identified the specifics of how this works by watching two different men in action:
a race track promoter and a racer / car builder who had been notorious for his rules cheating since the early 70's.

by synthesizing the actions of the racer/known cheater ( i actually 'helped' him cheat in the tech shed while being unaware of what he was doing and only found out later what he'd done ) versus a public announcement by the track promoter i identified the promoter's obfuscated goal. i subsequently announced on a public message board what his attempted goal was and completely monkey wrenched what he was trying to do.

Jestin Ernest said...

here's another perfect example of what i'm talking about:
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/07/166745290/school-district-owes-1-billion-on-100-million-loan
"Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table.

...

In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
"


you want to take any bets on how much Ramsey is getting in kickbacks from the bond purchaser?

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain STEM, TBH, and SMV? I think I'm a little behind ^_^

Shimshon said...

That's really the problem with game. It asks nothing of women...

Facepalm, I think one of the axioms underlying game is that you can't ask anything of women. Asking is fundamentally beta. If you're asking, she's got the frame.

jlw said...

The reasons that I do poorly with women (to whom I am attracted) is that I am short, ugly, poor and (apparently, according to two IQ tests) of below-average intelligence. It's amazing the lengths people in my life will go to to avoid admiting that simple truth.

Toby Temple said...

For those who can't figure out the acronyms:

STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

SMV = Sexual Market Value

TBH = To Be Honest

taterearl said...

"If you're asking, she's got the frame."

Yup...the only questions you should be asking a woman that I wouldn't consider beta would consist of "what time is it" or "where is it located." And that's if I don't have the information in front of me.

Anything to do with actions or feelings...just state it.

Anonymous said...

The problem with this advice is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm looking to raise a family of smart kids, preferably a large one. I need to find a woman with the intelligence and disposition to cooperate with me on this. Any casual sex I have to go through on the way to this destination is of negative value to me, though I'll put up with it if it's the most practical way to develop the requisite social skills and image.

"Women don't value cognitive integrity"... sure, there is a strong statistical tendency in this direction. But it would be insane, both for quality of life and personal eugenic reasons, for me to not at least strongly filter for women in the cognitive integrity right tail. Any Game advice that tends to filter out women 2SD+ on this trait, while increasing "success" rates with everyone else, is doubly counterproductive for me: I waste a lot more time with women I prefer to never deal with, while losing access to many genuinely viable matches.

I think I'm far from the only person in this boat. If you actually want to help to save Western Civilization with your Game blogging, I'd advise you to think more about what the best course of action is for men like me.

Desert Cat said...

facepalm said...
That's not the failure, the failure is not upholding the standard. People don't have to conform to it absolutely, but it needs to be upheld as an ideal. Logic, consistency, submission to a universal standard is what makes men superior to women and why we aren't shitting in the woods anymore.

"Understanding" is not the issue. Anyone can see women will twist and contort meanings to avoid accountability. Dogs will bite strangers if you allow them to. But if you expect them to live within our civilization peacefully and productively you have to domesticate them. You have to make them conform to our standards, not the other way around.


Women's irrational instincts have always ruled and will always rule them. It is not possible to ask of women what you wish to, and expect voluntary compliance. What you may ask of them is obedience to a system that provides for them the framework for civilized behavior that they lack in themselves. The fact that this framework has been deliberately destroyed is the cause, not the symptom of the disease.

Game is, as I see it, a first step in regaining hand; putting away the pretty lies that have unleashed this tide of hypergamy upon society.

You will get what you are after not by attempting to shame women into upholding an objective, logical standard, but after you reestablish the patriarchial framework that once constrained their behavior into more or less civilized patterns.


What's really illogical is to promote game while lamenting the decline of our civilization. Game is accelerating the decline because it takes the status quo as a given and works within it. Adaptation is not the answer. Moral and illectual consistency is related. People don't often rationalize away a moral good, but they do rationalize away evil actions.

The status quo that Game accepts is hypergamy and the rationalization hamster. This is fact whether or not the framework of civilization exists to constrain those forces of nature. Game is a first step that individual men can take within a broken system to reestablish patriarchy. Whether some take opportunity to go on hedonistic sprees is not the point. Others take it to break the spell that has fallen on men, which then permits them to right the ship in their own sphere of influence. Reestablishing the network/framework of civilization across such spheres comes next/later.

You're tilting at windmills and have the cart before the horse.

Anonymous said...

"Susan Walsh" and "red pill" are two things that do not belong in the same sentence, except for one like this that contrasts. A sure way to get banned in short order is to post red pill truth in a calm, unemotional manner, over and over again in response to the emotional, "I want a man right now and I deserve what I want" typical HUS girly.


Plus, Susan Walsh is heavily invested in building better Beta males to wife up her carousel riders, no matter the cost to the men. She regards men as something slightly more human than a robot or an ATM, on her good days. Once in a great, great while, she will stumble over some bit of truth, often one she's stumbled over before and it will be New! and Shiny! again. For a brief period of time, she'll be a bit more sympathetic to men. Then she'll dust herself off, revert to her 2nd wave feminist ways, and go about her business which is Team Woman. Red pill? Hardly. A very, very pale shade of lavender; deep blue with a hint of red but only on a good day.

If Susan Walsh ran a car lot, all the stock on hand would be rentals from Las Vegas International Airport agencies, with the odometers rolled back from 150,000 miles to 10,000, and a sign that reads "Like New!" on the dashboard. The price to match, of course. Goods that have been rode hard, and put away wet, used goods for the same price as a showroom model, what man could resist that?

A Man

Daniel said...

jlwThe reasons that I do poorly with women (to whom I am attracted) is that I am short, ugly, poor and (apparently, according to two IQ tests) of below-average intelligence. It's amazing the lengths people in my life will go to to avoid admiting that simple truth.

Simple solution, jlw. Start using the girls you are not attracted to as target practice. Since you aren't invested in them, the stakes are very low. If they reject you, move on to the next like an assembly line. Once you have some practice with low-risk, low-reward relationships, you can recalibrate for the more challenging ones. You are already at a distinct advantage simply by recognizing exactly where you stand right now, and not fooling yourself.

Also, devise a plan for making money. Height can't be controlled and ugly doesn't matter like it does for girls. Besides, one of the biggest players I know is a 60-year old, short ugly guy named Slappy who shows up at family functions with two or three new "gal-friends" every time.

But money doesn't hurt.

Cail Corishev said...

It's not that nerdy guys aren't emotional; everyone's emotional. It's that when they try to understand something outside their area of expertise, they come at it with their best skills: logic and problem-solving. If he wants to know if a girl likes him, he tries to figure it out by analyzing what she says, how she acts, and so on. This fails more often than not because there's little connection between what she says and how she actually feels.

A less nerdy guy wouldn't analyze the situation to death -- he'd just ask for her number or grab her ass or whatever impulse comes to mind, and see what happens. Then he walks off with the girl while nerd-boy is still trying to figure out what's going on.

This is changing, though, partly because the Internet has made it possible for a critical mass of nerds to get together online and compare notes, developing this stuff into a sort of science that can be logically understood and "solved." It's not perfect -- no human science is -- but as Badger said, the nerd who accepts the red pill and does his homework can go from zero a good way toward hero in a hurry.

Anonymous said...

A Man:

It's really pretty easy to understand HUS. Its female readership and commentariat is comprised primarily of:

1. Women who are unable to secure commitment from an attractive man

2. Women who were previously unable to secure commitment from an attractive man but have done so and want to give pointers to the others

3. Women who want to learn how to secure commitment from an attractive man

4. Women who have a commitment from an unattractive man

5. Women who are dating and/or having sex with an attractive man who won't offer commitment

The problem is most of the attractive men don't want to offer commitment; and most of the men willing to offer commitment aren't attractive to most women.

deti

Jestin Ernest said...

why Mitt Romney sucks with single women:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-dating-himself/2012/11/30/f9a53d06-301d-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story.html

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Toby Temple.

facepalm said...

Facepalm, I think one of the axioms underlying game is that you can't ask anything of women. Asking is fundamentally beta. If you're asking, she's got the frame.

You can ask plenty of women, as long as you're in the position of power. The problem is that cultural scaffold that sets expectations of behaviour has been destroyed and the men in positions of power now are filthy degenerates that ask nothing and have no expectations, except sexual.

Game gives individual men a relative advantage against women that are in their approximate range of attractiveness, if it's executed well. Most men don't really have the capacity to execute it well enough to really create an abundance of options or to shoot above their level, and those that do ultimately have to back it up with actual accomplishments to keep women long term.

Anonymous said...

"This is changing, though, partly because the Internet has made it possible for a critical mass of nerds to get together online and compare notes, developing this stuff into a sort of science that can be logically understood and "solved." It's not perfect -- no human science is -- but as Badger said, the nerd who accepts the red pill and does his homework can go from zero a good way toward hero in a hurry."

True on that - I am living proof (PUA, more lays in year than in my whole life).

However, question is if nerd, now aware of women's tips and tricks will still want to continue to marry those bitches?

Right now I am pretty angry - I have spent one year on learning those ticks and it seems to be a waaaaaaay more productive than working my butt off in cubicle.

Jestin Ernest said...

what's productive about "working your butt off in a cubicle"?

been there, done that. CAD and records work in my case. what i was doing was an efficiency multiplier, it wasn't directly 'productive'.

characterizing cube drone work as productive indicates that you've still got blue pill aspects to your personality.

Anonymous said...

"characterizing cube drone work as productive indicates that you've still got blue pill aspects to your personality"

What is has to do with blue-pill? I don't see connection...

I am software engineer - I create software. Before that I was working in hardware shop.
Most of STEM guys work in cubes. In this 70%-services economy that's natural place to work.

krauserpua.com said...

Very Misean - value is subjective, human action.

I agree. In economics, value is not inherent in the thing it is merely a subjective assessment of the person doing the assessment. A market transaction happens when the buyer places a higher value on the product than the money he has to buy it with, and vice versa for the seller. Market trades necessarily rely upon a disagreement in value of the thing.

SMP is a market. Similar concepts apply.

I was trying to get to this point when I posted on the difference between a man's man and a lady's man. The latter lives in the world valued by women and thus men tend to have a low estimation of him, but he has success with women.

STEM guys and Gammas (often the same imho) want the world to value what they do, then whine when it doesn't. So much pain results from wishing the world to be different to what it is.

Cail Corishev said...

what's productive about "working your butt off in a cubicle"?

He's saying that learning game is more productive in getting laid than working at a steady, good-paying job that gives you security, comfort, and the other things that women supposedly want from a man.

The truth is, if your primary goal is to get laid, you should probably work just enough hours to pay for the bare necessities and whatever toys you want, and then spend the rest of your time out meeting women. Any more time spent in the office is just time taken away from getting laid, and a bigger apartment or a fancier car isn't going to improve your chances enough to make up for that.

He's angry because no one told him that -- he was taught the exact opposite, in fact.

Anonymous said...

"The truth is, if your primary goal is to get laid, you should probably work just enough hours to pay for the bare necessities and whatever toys you want, and then spend the rest of your time out meeting women. Any more time spent in the office is just time taken away from getting laid, and a bigger apartment or a fancier car isn't going to improve your chances enough to make up for that."

Half-truth.

You can be only chasing chicks, but them then you are losing your carrier and financials.
Your friends make progress, buy bigger houses and better cars. You will not be able to catch up later.

I believe the optimal model for STEM guy is like this:
Age 18-25:
- focus on study
- start carrier
- whack to porn (sadly...)

Age 25-30:
- if you can have mobile carrier, start travelling around the world (jump jobs)
- join gym (weight lifting, but no steroids)
- save money (invest in real estate, stocks, etc)
- around 28 - get bootcamp, join PUA-s, learn and practice game (get first lays with 6-7, takes 1-2 yrs depending on environment), be heartbroken at least once

Age 30-35:
- you probably are in top 10% income already
- you should be red-pill now, make peace with your anger
- keep going gym (after 3yrs you should be looking ok)
- your carrier will take care of itself (you are pro with 7+ experience), but you shall focus on staying in one place for longer and get to higher positions
- focus on game and notches (2yrs experience, you should be laying 7-8 now), throw money if you need - the most PUA don't have this advantage

Age 35+
- you have maxed your attractiveness (health/fitness, income/carrier, game/mindset)
- nail good 8hb+ girl (after 5yrs in game you can recognize slut with ease), marry her or not - your choice
- visit your exes/other chicks who rejected you and laugh at them

Anonymous said...

krauser

Those gamma/stem guys figured out game you cherish so much

i dont have respect for you, seeing what you doing

Cail Corishev said...

Your friends make progress, buy bigger houses and better cars. You will not be able to catch up later.

Catch up to what? Do guys go after the bigger house and better cars for themselves, or to impress women? If you know those things don't impress women, why ever "catch up" to them? (Don't get me wrong; if you're really into classic cars, then by all means collect them. Just don't pay big bucks for a car thinking it's a status symbol, unless it's a red Ferrari.)

If I had it to do over right now as a young guy, I'd head to North Dakota where a guy with no training willing to work hard can easily make near six figures. Work as many hours as possible and be frugal, and within a few years I could come home and buy a house and nice car for cash, and be way ahead of the guys still piling up debt to build a "career." I probably wouldn't need to spend a lot of time in the gym either, because I'd have been working for a living. I'd be in better shape and have more money and free time to chase pussy than if I'd gone to college. I wouldn't need to catch up because I'd have a head-start.

Anonymous said...

"Catch up to what? Do guys go after the bigger house and better cars for themselves, or to impress women? If you know those things don't impress women, why ever "catch up" to them?"

Not for pussy, but for myself, so I can enjoy life without worrying that younger guy kicks me off. And get retired at 40-45.

Being STEM has its own benefits - why not to utilize them to the max?

I believe typical alpha guy (jock) will have much harder to get to my level of assets and knowledge, than me to his level of game (I can pay my way to bootcamps and one-on-one sessions).

As someone posted above, game was developed by nerds for nerds. After year I already can compete with naturals in terms of attracting chicks (I am average looking), easily AMOG them and I am way better on approaches (some naturals cannot approach when sober).
Still a lot to learn on rapport and escalation, but I will get there in 1-2 years.

Just trying to get the best of both worlds...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.