Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

[Guest0291]

As for a title change, I think "Do looks matter more than game?" is a more fair title and far more representative of the argument. Muscles aren't everything. A handsome face, a good height, a good set of teeth, etc. matter.

Oddly enough you seem to think the same thing: those girls have busted up faces, as you say. Looks mattered to you. Who would have thought? If that fat bald friend of yours can lay dime pieces, surely these girls with busted faces as you say have a good shot with you?

 

[Bboy100]

Bert,

You dismiss all of Chase's evidence on the basis of the fact that its anecdotal. And that's fine. I feel the same way. I like science or gtfo. Having said that, all of YOUR evidence is also anecdotal (either your personal experience, or the experience of public figures you know). So by these standards, we have no more reason to believe what you say than we have to believe Chase. And don't get me wrong, I agree that not all of Chase's advice is solid. In fact, I had a super long ass post which resulted in an article and a very long discussion between me and a few other board members a while back about how I think a lot of GirlsChase's material isn't exactly on point.

Having said that, in regards to this particular discussion, Chase is completely right. Muscles will only get you so far. I could use my own personal experience to support that, but it sounds like for this discussion, my experiences don't count as credible evidence. Instead, I'll link you to a podcast which uses nothing but science based evidence to support their claims. Specifically scroll down and, note the "How to be attractive to women series". Each one of those links is a one hour long podcast on specific traits which women find valuable in men. Only one of said podcasts is related to physique. Check it out if you're interested: http://thematinggrounds.com/topics-cove ... g-grounds/

Want citations for said research? Scroll over "resources" and click on "mate references".

And remember, if you're going to write a response, you better have some sort of proof that either the research I linked is false, or something other than your experiences to prove that you're right. Cause anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable in this conversation.

 

[Guest0291]

@Bboy100

I said feel free to disregard my anecdotal evidence. You are mostly correct in your assertion. Use your head to determine what to believe. I stated this at the very beginning dude, this is not some new revelation. But question Bboy: what do you look like? How much do you weigh?

If you're on the tiny side, try this: get big, and I mean maxed out in your muscles. Now try to get into the dating game again and see what happens. Also, you didn't cite any studies at all, post is anecdotal/10. Some podcast isn't exactly a research study dude, let alone their selectively posted studies in a subject area that studies are terrible for quality in. Do you see why I mentioned the whole anecdotal thing at the beginning? A lot of shit in PUA is anecdotal. A lot of studies in certain areas are bullshit too. That is why bullshit gets through in the first place: so many anecdotes and "scientific proof" for everyone's point.

And that's why I clipped Chase for the anecdotal conundrum: his entire post is anecdotal and will continue to be. He can't prove his point in any solid regard then. Neither can I. It's the same reason I always ignored the scientific studies mentioned in his articles: they're not conclusive enough. In the end, it's going to come down to who does the reader believe or who they are going to listen to for the time being. Hence our long discussion.

You see the same thing in bodybuilding dude. New studies everyday about how one food kills testosterone, coffee is good (or wait, no it's abd), chocolate is key to muscle growth (wait, it actually kills it, don't eat that), etc. You must eat in the anabolic window to gain muscle, rest exactly 30 sec between sets,etc. Google it. Most studies aren't reliable in this sphere or the dating sphere from what I've seen, which is why I didn't bother to cite any in the first place. If you read my past posts, you can see I'm quite good about citing sources when necessary. So calm down dude, we're on the same page on that. The problem is studies for things like this are questionable, so what's the point of citing them.

So to determine who is correct, the option left is to try a way. I'd like to invite guys to try my way. Do what I suggest. If it doesn't work at all, then you know who is correct and who to say is bullshitting. That is really the only way someone is going to come to a conclusion. The problem with this is you have guys here that claim looks don't matter and look nothing close to good looking, let alone muscular. Let alone look anything like Joe mentioned above. So how the fuck are they going to know how things could change if they were good looking or buff? That's my point.

Funny enough, most guys would rather argue with me about how I'm wrong. If I am so wrong, give it a shot. Make me look like a moron. Prove it. Don't just claim you're good looking or looks don't matter when you are not good looking. Remember, I actually really want guys to get laid regularly, I'm not here to stroke my ego. This is what I am saying.

And for some hilarious reason, this frustrates the fuck out of several guys here, save for ones that PM me to ask what I'm talking about. So I'm getting really tired of guys trying to go "Oh I got you, you slipped up on this right here, you're wrong!!" when they should actually be taking the time to really delve into reading what is being posted. They are so focused on trying to "get me" they're ignoring what I'm actually saying.

To determine who is right, try it yourself. That's the only way you're going to know for real. But if guys just want to explain 1000 ways why I'm wrong or wait to clip me on something, I'd say they are missing the point.

This entire debate is just a spectacle, people are going to believe who they want. I am here on this board to get guys questioning things, although I'm also here to expose bullshit like Drexel's shilling of questionable products.

I am here to knock guys out of what is blind dedication and have guys sit down and re-examine. Upon their re-examining of their beliefs, if they still want to choose Chase's way, that's perfectly fine. What I see is guys blindly following a path because of various authors claiming it works, yet they don't see nearly as good results. Guys that look bad but say they get with hotties. Authors that are poor but write books on how to get rich. Not a smart way to live life.

And so you get guys like Ken. Ken has been on the board for years and is now asking "Why isn't this stuff working?" It took me years before I finally did that. It's healthy to re-examine what belief systems you inhabit. I am not here to force guys into my beliefs. If a guy wants to do something, cool, it's a free country. I'm here to offer help. That is all. You can take it or leave it.

You could say "Well King Bert, I don't see you re-examining shit to check out our point of view?" That's because I lived your point of view already. I did the cold approaching, the NLP, the chase framing, the abundance mentality, the practicing openers, all of it for years on end. My results never got anywhere close to good. Then I got buff, scrapped all of that crap, and just went with "hi" and having a normal conversation with girls I liked. Suddenly I was getting laid 3 times a month with various girls I could never get with before. I have already had your point of view. My conclusion: it doesn't work.

But do what you like man.

 

[Chase]

Okay. If it's "looks vs. game", debunk the science I've cited here:

How Much Do Looks Matter for Romantic Success?

If you can argue around these results, I will, I promise, make a dedicated "humor/confidence/frame control/uncertainty/flirting vs. height/muscles/looks" post (i.e., game vs. fundamentals), make it an orgy of scientific references (let's say 50+... I have a spreadsheet full of these puppies we used in my upcoming course), and lay out exactly what ALL the science says on how big an impact game has on your results with women versus how big an impact fundamentals have.

Which, I mean, I really shouldn't have to do, since I stress all the time, everywhere, constantly, that both are crucial.

I mean, you're even quoting me in your response to me, Bert (i.e. "you can't talk your way into a woman's pants", which is one of my mantras). Which makes this entire thread somewhat bizarre to me.

(also, as an aside: I wish there was a way to avoid the idealization/devaluation guys do with seduction-related materials and just have them approach them as various tools you can use or not use, some of which fit you better and some of which don't fit as well, rather than "gospel or heresy". The devaluation guys are usually guys who idealized the material or the teacher at first, then had a falling out of love and now have all this resentment built up toward what they previously idealized. It's a really funny process - I've never gone through it myself... every teacher I've had or course I've studied I've viewed as worthwhile, yet limited, and still think highly of everyone/everything I've learned from, probably because I never over-idealized any of it - but it seems like for some guys there's just no way around it, and nothing you can say or do will stop them from idealizing you, then later, inevitably, when they run into problems or realize you're just a man, devaluing you)

(secondary aside: critiquing girls' looks when those girls' looks are being used to make an argument is not hypocrisy. It's counterargument. Just had to get that off my chest)

(third aside: Joe Ducard - confirmation bias. Joe attributes his success to improved fundamentals + improved game. You look at Joe and say "Joe's game doesn't matter; his fundamentals are everything!", and totally ignore the half of Joe's message he puts out there. That's confirmation bias in action, where you take a chunk of data, use the parts of it that support your premise, and disregard the parts that don't. That's a normal human logic flaw [it's part of the software we all come with] but if the aim is convincing arguments, you need to be able to spot biases like this and root them out before you craft points around them)

But yeah. If you can refute, I'll do a monster post on this. Though you've got to refute first. I'm not going to do the work of making a massive science dump on game vs. fundamentals unless you can tell me why the science I've already covered in "Do Looks Matter" is irrelevant or wrong or my interpretation of it is off or the studies are methodologically flawed or what have you. If you can refute that, I'll do a mega science post on this.

If you can't refute it, you'll just have to wait for One Date. 900+ studies in there at the moment. Will probably be closer to 1200 once I'm finally done obsessing over it.


DREXEL

Claims against Drexel - links? Sources? Post 'em here or send 'em via the contact form if you want me to have a look. If there's something funny I'll ask him what the deal is. So far the only stuff I've heard is good, and he's always been a straight shooter so far as I've known him (if a little polarizing at times - something the two of you seem to have in common. Wonder what a conversation between the two of you over tea would look like), but send things over if you've heard otherwise.

-C

 

[Guest0291]

Slim Shady's back boys.

Didn't crop your photo Drex. Dude, it takes five minutes to find the link you posted, put it in an IMG tag while writing, and discover it's too big to fit the page. It's not my fault you posted a big picture or that the way the forum is set up, your picture crops automatically.

See for yourself. Also fun, trying zooming out on your web browser. Whoah, the other half of the picture magically appears!

Here is the original link so you can test it yourself: http://i.imgur.com/DF8rLZx.jpg

Put it in an IMG tag and see how it comes up.

So wait... how was I dishonest? Uh oh brah, that conclusion that I'm dishonest is well... not conclusive.

But you're right, and I agree, people who are dishonest usually project that others are in fact dishonest. Let's check that here. For this post let's stick to Drexel. Let's go over links and sources for Drexel's companies, affiliates, and practices then if I'm such a liar.



"The Release Technique"

First, let's start with the least credible problems: credit card scamming.

https://www.complaintsboard.com/complai ... 93676.html
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/sem ... ane-670566

The reason I say least credible is because RipOffReports and ComplaintsBoards have a history of being paid off to take bad reviews away amongst other stuff. Take the info there for what you will.

Moving on to the crazy shit. It's about to get good

"The Release Technique" Drexel posted is by a guy called Larry Crane. In the link Drexel posted to his program, you see the name Lester Levenson.

Larry Crane states in the link:

"The Release Technique is an original system discovered in 1952 by physicist, Lester Levenson."

That name Lester Levenson... wait that sounds familiar to me...

He was the guy behind the Sedona Method: http://www.sedona.com/Lesters-Story.asp

(Note: to save you money on Drexel's program then, feel free to check out Levenson's work at Stillness Speaks.com, Google it with Lester's name, and you'll find a free PDF you can just read. Personally, I recommend you don't take it seriously, but that's just me.)

Sedona Method has some odd relationships with Scientology as well.

For one thing they certainly knew about each other's organizations. Levenson was placed on the enemies list against Scientology in 1992: http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html

Even more odd, why does Levenson's advice come so close to Scientology? His PACMAN model mimics Hubbard's Tone Scale, or it's the other way around: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.p ... ale-origin

And just like Scientology, Levenson and Larry Crane are selling "belief" or "enlightenment." To be free of negative feelings (just like Scientology, http://www.scientology.org/faq/backgrou ... etics.html).

But enlightenment costs a pretty penny, $200. You also need to go on retreats. And for some reason there are so many teachers and so many price tags and programs to go through. I can go through Drexel's Release program or if I want to go vintage I can just go through the old one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaYGNt8Z4sU

Another name that pops up on these cult/New Age forums, especially in relation to the Release technique, is Hale Dwoskin, the CEO and Director of Training of Sedona Training and Associates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/hale-dwoskin

He was another student of Lester Levenson, just like Larry Crane (https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Free-E ... 0971933405)

Crazy how these guys splinter off to sell their own product isn't it? If you read that HuffPost link you can see that Hale Dwoskin was featured in the world famous book, "The Secret." That book The Secret? It's bullshit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book)#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)#Criticism
http://www.news.com.au/opinion/making-b ... 8dedc456ff


Oh and funny enough, The Secret was all about the "Law of Attraction." Guess what I found in the Sedona Method? The Law of Attraction: http://www.sedona.com/the_secret_behind_the_secret.asp

Guess what I found in The Release Technique? The Law of Attraction: http://www.releasetechnique.com/lester- ... ttraction/


And remember, Drexel's The Release Technique is just the Sedona Method repackaged (http://mindtoolsreview.com/the-release- ... ue-review/). And the Sedona Method and all this crap is The Secret repacked, and vice versa. You see this pattern everywhere, repackaging and repackaging. They even hired marketer Christopher Payne to repackage their bullshit:

http://www.christopherjohnpayne.com/201 ... od-course/
http://www.christopherjohnpayne.com/201 ... epackaged/


Some questionable shit in there. Payne states: "I was always looking for new products to promote to my list of 50,000 buyers, so I spoke with Hale and proposed a new product: a set of 6 books each containing one sixth of The Keys book, with the same introduction in each one, and the same conclusion."

Wow strong business practice there. Let's take an old product, cut it into pieces, and sell those pieces. Furthermore, let's sell the idea that enlightenment is free and comes from within, but charge up the ass for it. You can't just get enlightenment from one product, you need retreats, books, programs, DVD sets, and more. Oh and those retreats? Yeah they cost $2400: http://www.releasetechnique.com/retreat ... llionaire/


Enlightenment ain't cheap boyos. But most curious is this: If all I need is the one product to get enlightenment then why are there so many other things I need to buy? And I thought happiness was free Lester Levenson? https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Free-E ... 0971933405

So what is the Sedona Method/The Release Technique? It's an affiliate bullshit program where students become teachers, teachers become salesman, and changing your mindset is a hundred to thousand dollar endeavor. Want to become a millionaire? We'll teach you the "mindset" of a millionaire in just 7 days! Only $2180: http://www.releasetechnique.com/retreat ... llionaire/

But wait, shouldn't the Sedona Method or The Release Technique be good enough on its own?

And let's ask: if The Release Technique was so fucking successful, then why the fuck is it a repacked version of the Sedona Method or The Secret? Why the fuck is this bullshit rebranding itself under so many salesmen? http://www.rashanasoundessences.com/the ... -compared/

Suddenly those claims of credit card fraud aren't so cooky sounding. Scientology and these spiritual bullshit groups are known for poor practices. It doesn't shock me at all that they are fraudin in other ways, repackaging their bullshit, chopping up books for resale, etc.


So how does this carry over to NLP, Dave Riker, Ross Jeffries, and PUA?





PUA is a Scam Too. And Who Was Dave Riker?

Let's see if we can find parallels based on common sense.

New Age Spiritual programs: has expensive retreats/bootcamps, sells new programs constantly, the program is good but now we have a new one that you need to buy, you're not reaching enlightenment, products are expensive, and there are several offshoots of the same teachings repacked and rebranded to sell the exact same thing.

PUA companies: has expensive retreats/bootcamps, sells new programs constantly, the program is great but now we have a new one that you need to buy, you're not reaching mastery, the products are expensive, and there are several offshoots of the same teachings repacked and rebranded to sell the exact same thing.


In the New Age Spiritual section, we have Freedom Now that became The Sedona Method/The Secret that became The Release Technique. Of course the order is all over the map depending on where you look. Links for this are in those Christopher Payne links mentioned above.

Oh wait, that kind of parallels Mystery and the various offshoots from PUA, like from The Game, or Ross Jeffries' Speed Seduction or RSDTyler's RSDNation or Vince Kelvin's Casanova Crew. Who off-shooted from these? David Riker came from Speed Seduction and surprise, Kong from SimplePickup who came from the Casanova Crew (http://forum.casanovacrew.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18304)

All continuing to sell bullshit Do you that pattern of rebranding and repackaging bullshit, students become teachers to continue selling, whether it's in their own company or part of the same one?

The parallels is fucking outstanding. Too anecdotal though, yes.

Let's get concrete. Although in the meantime check into this Ross Jeffries guy for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4yzVOXY8E

First, Speed Seduction (Ross Jeffries) paid for fake testimonials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... ZFwm3gghlU

He then created a fake anti-PUA blog (PUAfraud.com) to capitalize on the trend while using his own profile to bash other PUA companies except hit own: http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2010/11 ... loves.html

Sound like a good businessman?

Next, he had a book How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed that has a chapter with the title, “How to fake like you are warm and friendly.” Good teachings there.

It gets worse with his "Speed Seduction" course http://www.seduction.com/ross-jeffries- ... g-courses/

"Get All Of The Amazingly Wonderful, Smoking Hot Women You Could Ever Desire, No Matter What Your Looks, Age, Social/Economic Status Or Previous Experience"

Wow, well someone on the Internet said it so then it must be true. How on Earth is this possible? Oh, the "Blowjob" NLP pattern, that's going to be the key:

http://www.seduction.com/media/pdf/Sedu ... tterns.pdf

Get real Ross.



So this brings us to NLP, and Dave Riker who worked with Ross Jeffries: http://www.daveriker.com/

Dave Riker now teaches NLP, just like Ross Jeffries did.


If anyone wants to just write everything off before as "anecdotal evidence" and wants hard science, I will now start citing dem scientific studies for the fun of it.


https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ppb.20 ... 0008-0.xml

"The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP."

http://web.archive.org/web/201209050751 ... p57-63.pdf

Today, NLP is big business with large numbers of training
courses,personal development programmes,therapeutic and educational interventions purporting to be
based on the principles of NLP.This paper explores what NLP is,the evidence for it, and issues related to
its use.It concludes that after three decades,there is still no credible theoretical basis for NLP,researchers
having failed to establish any evidence for its efficacy that is not anecdotal.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nE9FC ... &q&f=false

Page 166:

(Heap, 1988; Sharpley, 1987) [...] Sharpley's response was:

"The basic tenets of NLP have failed to be reliably verified in almost 86% of the controlled studies"

And

"In the more than 20 years that elapsed since the aforementioned article, to date there is no convincing empirical evidence on the efficacy of NLP."

So Drexel supports a fake science and Dave Riker, who worked with scammers like Ross Jeffries. Perfect.



Conclusion


So, The Release Technique is just a repackaged Sedona Method/The Secret, the founder of the Sedona Method being Lester Levonson. Larry Crane from Drexel's program is a student of that guy and one of many students who continue to sell the New Age spiritual program that it is (Hale Dwoskin, David Hawkins, etc.). The program also has parallels to Scientology and was placed on the enemies list for Scientology, probably due to competition.

With these programs, you have to pay for enlightenment, there's always another DVD set or program, students become affiliates and teachers become salesmen, the brand gets sold by another guy, etc. at a pretty steep price might I add.

And the Sedona Method and The Release Technique have fake reviews errywhere boys:

http://www.personal-development.info/re ... ue-review/
http://www.menshealthcures.com/release-technique/
http://www.rashanasoundessences.com/the ... ue-review/
http://mindtoolsreview.com/the-release- ... ue-review/
https://tomstine.com/the-sedona-method-review/
http://www.begin2dig.com/2009/08/sedona ... -what.html
http://www.positivehealth.com/review/th ... e-you-want


Drexel is an affiliate of that program. He also claims to be a practitioner of NLP and supports fellow practitioner Dave Riker. Not only is NLP not based on any actual science/results (nor will it ever be), but Dave Riker is connected to PUA coach Ross Jeffries, who sells multiple programs and events at heavy price points with the line: ""Get All Of The Amazingly Wonderful, Smoking Hot Women You Could Ever Desire, No Matter What Your Looks, Age, Social/Economic Status Or Previous Experience"

Ross also believes in NLP and teaches it. Ross Jeffries is a scammer and fraud.

(PS. Does anyone honestly believe Ross Jeffries' Blowjob pattern shit where you: 1. Ask her about anything she really, really loves to eat 2. Describe the sensation of eating that food and amplify with gustatory gusto 3. Link it to your dick using a "dick point".)


So tell me boyos of Girlschase, who's seeming more trustworthy at this point. I don't even have a program to sell you by the way.



Fun links:

Want to be more aware of bullshit in PUA and Internet marketing?

Just found this video, and it seems interesting. Can't say for the quality as I haven't watched it all, merely skimmed and found some interesting parts. Even if it's shitty as far as proof, it's funny to hear Internet marketers say one thing and then go back on what they said later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYc1-wxRx0Y

 

[Guest0291]

Chase: "Where is your proof?"

King Bert: "Here ya go."

Drexel: "Pssh lunatic."

This is why we can't have nice things Drexel.


And Drex, have you read Chase's policy here:

EDIT: also, no flame wars. Fine/healthy to question sacred cows, but if you're going to go about it by piling up ad hominems, this is not the place for that. There are plenty of ways to make points in civil fashion. The moment you stop treating your opponent with respect is the moment you cede the debate to him.

 

[Chase]

No.

That is not what I asked for.

Every argument you laid out in earlier posts I addressed. Every argument I made you dodged, feinted, or moved the goal posts on. I'm not going to continue deconstructing your arguments while you ignore mine.

Refute the science IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED TO. You may come at it from any angle. You may debate the methodology of the studies, you may debate my interpretation of these studies in the article linked to, you may debate the study authors' conclusions. Any of that is fine.

This whole bad faith thing of "anything Chase says I will just ignore unless it helps my argument" nonsense doesn't fly. If you want a further response from me, address my points.

I'll be waiting.

Chase

 

[Guest0291]

Chase,

Not what you asked for?

Claims against Drexel - links? Sources? Post 'em here or send 'em via the contact form if you want me to have a look.

Before you criticize my ability to provide answers, you might want to remember what you actually asked for.

I provided an answer to your question. I'm not dodging or ignoring. I'm not avoiding. I'm answering. It takes time and I don't have time to answer everything at once. I will get to all the questions and points.

On the topic of dodging though, I provided info for my case against Drexel. And both of you have actually dodged and ignored it.


Chase: "Evidence against Drexel?"
King Bert: "Here ya go."
Chase: "No, this is not what I asked for! Quit dodging me!"

Chase: "Evidence against Drexel?"
King Bert: "Here ya go."
Drexel: "He took the time to gather evidence? Lunatic."

Are you guys serious? I answer a question and get criticized for just answering it by both of you?

What's next, I reply to your point and you ban me? That'll really show me. Will just add credibility to the fact that I was onto something here that you both didn't like, so I don't recommend it.

So what are you going to do Chase: finally address my argument that a writer you hired is selling bogus products, fake science (NLP), and supports scammers while waiting for me to address your other point, or go full ban? Or just accuse me of dodging again?

I know what you'll do: defend your author. Because no amount of him supporting scammers or bogus products (NLP, The Release Technique, The Sexualizer) will ever make you admit anything wrong. And your defense will just be "I know him, he's a swell guy, he's been on here a longtime. I don't know you at all, I'm going to trust my friend!"

Tell me guys of Girlschase, does an author on a site selling expensive bogus products (NLP, The Release Technique) to you while supporting scammers sound like a trustworthy guy?

To any new guys reading, use your heads. If I give advice for years and then start trying to sell you dick growth pills, does that not make you do a double take? Similarly if I try to sell you the near $200 Release Technique, a bogus Diet-Scientology course where there's always more money to spend, does that not make you double take?

 

[Guest0291]

Have time before I have to go meet my girl. I can refute your own article using your own cited research Chase. Better yet, I can do it quickly.


Looks

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 7210395604

For both sexes, attractiveness predicted desirability for a one-night stand, whereas attractiveness and agreeableness were predictors of desirability for a serious relationship.

Attractiveness matters, who knew?



Money

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy ... -22527-001

Furthermore, conspicuous purchasing enhanced men's desirability as a short-term (but not as a long-term) mate.

Money matters for getting laid, shocker.


(Note: the first study link you cited is broken: "Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.")




Just lol at your article's conclusion though. You yourself state these two things:

In this case, dominance plays a very large role. That is to say, perceived physical dominance impacts attractiveness, which predicts desirability for a one-night stand.

The more physically dominant you appear, the more one-night stand worthy you become. Just what constitutes "perceived physical dominance," you might ask?

This:

Muscles
Movement speed (slowness)
Effort levels (obeying the Law of Least Effort and using sprezzatura)
Powerful body language that takes up space
A powerful, sexy walk that exudes confidence
A deep, resonant voice

The researchers here found that throwing money around actually does work in making you a more attractive one-night stand candidate.

Which I've seen from experience - I've watched guys in VIP with bottle service outcompete better-looking men with equivalent levels of game for women in nightclubs.

But then refute it with an anecdote we're supposed to take at face value:

For my money though, dominance is what rules the coop.

Of course, that last is anecdotal... my experience has been that, the more dominant I've appeared and the more dominant I've behaved, the greater my success with women has become, and the higher the caliber of women I've been able to get has gotten.

And even in this thread, you contradict your article with:

Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results.

So wait...the research that you yourself cited states that money and looks matter. And the conclusion you draw from that is "Well I can just appear and behave dominantly to get the same effect. But of course this is just anecdotal!" Oh and even better, I can be short, out of shape, and ugly, and get equivalent results to someone with money or good looks as long as I have "game." Or if a guy is ugly and short like your friend, he can just "walk slow" and utilize "powerful body language" that'll somehow magically convince women that he's attractive despite his obvious shortcomings.

This is just too easy for me, I'm not even trying at this point. I can just quote your own stuff to disprove your own points.


You want to beat my posts? You want to shuffle off ol' King Bert's point here? Find me a research paper or study where a billionaire or bodybuilder compete with a completely average out of shape guy to lay hot women (slender, above average face, etc.). Even better, find me one where the average guys "use game" to beat the guys with muscles or money in getting laid with hot women. And no, studies that are just talking about what is "perceived as attractive" don't count. I want to see actual results. Good luck.

 

[Chase]

Attractiveness does not mean looks, as used in the study. It means 'attractiveness' (e.g., confidence is attractive).

Me saying "here are two studies, one which finds X has an influence, and another which finds Y has an influence. We don't have any studies to compare the influence of X and Y, but I'll tell you anecdotally, X seems to have the bigger impact" is not me saying "Y has no impact." It is me saying we don't have a study for whether X or Y has the bigger impact, but experience tells me X.

You get an A for effort, but an F for reading comprehension and ability to argue.

The stuff on Drexel I didn't even look at before because you completely ignored the rest of my post. I just looked at it now. It looks completely nutty. So it's like there's some scammer, and Ross Jeffries talked to this guy or coached him or something, and Drexel promotes a Ross Jeffries product, and Girls Chase promotes Drexel, therefore Girls Chase is a scammer unless we sever ties immediately with Drexel, that right? Crazy.

Last thing I'll say is you know man, I do feel for you. I've been saying on here from Day 1 that if you want a specific type of girl (like bottle blonde gym bunnies), you MUST conform to their type, or you've got to excel at what you do and go BEYOND type. You did what some guys do, and totally ignored that part, probably because you listened to other teachers who were telling you "words are all you need" or something. That's a shame. But then you come back here and pick a fight with one of the few guys who was telling you if you want girls who hit the gym, you'd better go hit the gym. It's insensible.

Anyway, for rudeness, incivility, the weird crazy police poster board with yarn connecting some web of people that goes back to like the 1990s or something, failure to actually refute me on the one thing you had to refute me on, and just general blockheadedness, you are forthwith banned from the Girls Chase boards.

Go forth to bodybuilding.com and be happy.

Thread is now locked. May it rest in peace.

Chase