Seduction Isn't A Piggy Bank, Probability, or Menial Labor

[FAB DRONES]

Very interesting post, with some well made points. I’d disagree you have to fix every other area of social skills though. If a guy wants to succeed as a seducer he can purely hone in on this area alone. Ie talking to chicks. He could feasible for this by hanging out at Starbucks all day and night every single day if he had the time. And just use 1 single location to build his skill at talking to women (and men also). This is pretty much how ‘Naturals’ organically do it in their teenage years . I mean guys that are not ‘Chads’ in looks ( who never had to learn much beyond escalate anything anyway).

they are either street-hustler types from lower socio economic backgrounds OR rich kids with plenty time and money to do so. The key element is Time To Do So. Lots of spare time is a big driver/lever.

a guy could spend all of his time in one busy Starbucks chatting to women throughout the day and working a game plan ABCDE. from some kind of indirect approach to getting the chick into a location for sex.

this is really how it’s done not mass cold approaching everywhere before the skill has been learned properly,

it’s pretty much all small talk, Indirect stuff firstly, moving into flirting and comfort building then moving into seduction. As per mystery method - he laid it all out and codified the whole thing step by step imo. Great method

It can take 4 hours and a few bounces to begin with. Then it can be boiled down to short timeframes and finally very quick seductions.

that’s how it’s learned to me from my experience and watching players in action.

to me it’s basically salesmanship/ aka ‘hustling’.

there is a strong parallel between good salesmanship and good seduction. Period.

a good could be a great seducer and this will spill out into other areas of his social life . But he needs to be mindful in wider social groups others will observe him to be “sleazy” using the same game in a bigger social context. Gotta tone it down in those situations as others are always watching.

Hope that helps newbies.

How would you define a "Chad" and how did those "Chads" get good- same way, just hooking more easily, or is the learning process different for a 'Chad'?

I'm back to this thread, which I agree with Will, I need to get my social skills. In my case I think I need new friends but I could also reconnect with old friends because I stopped wanting friends.

Of course in the short term it's encouraging to hear that talking to chicks can be focused on in isolation. In the short term I'm enjoying day game and have the free time right now.

Friends would definitely help with night game, because I haven't felt like going out alone in a while.

I also need to start befirending the local art people, or at least schmoozing, for my art career. Very motivating that this is also a key step in getting good with girls. Should've been obvious, but still, that's why I come to the forum.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

How would you define a "Chad" and how did those "Chads" get good- same way, just hooking more easily, or is the learning process different for a 'Chad'?

I'm back to this thread, which I agree with Will, I need to get my social skills. In my case I think I need new friends but I could also reconnect with old friends because I stopped wanting friends.

Of course in the short term it's encouraging to hear that talking to chicks can be focused on in isolation. In the short term I'm enjoying day game and have the free time right now.

Friends would definitely help with night game, because I haven't felt like going out alone in a while.

I also need to start befirending the local art people, or at least schmoozing, for my art career. Very motivating that this is also a key step in getting good with girls. Should've been obvious, but still, that's why I come to the forum.

Hi Mrman
A Chad to me from my understanding is basically an “ Alpha Jock” type.

and usually from a wealthy social economic strata.
An Alpha Sporty type guy.

otherwise there is a Bad -Boy Type who is from a lower economic social strata .
He’s more of an Alpha thug / criminal type guy.

Both are Alpha and both AMOG / Bully other guys and Beta Males.

that’s the foundational understanding I have from IRL and also pickup community material definitions ( and google definitions).

I think it’s a pretty good definition myself.
And “ Alpha Male” to me pretty much just equates at the bottom line to “Leader Of Men” regardless of type or social strata.

hope that helps.
The term Chad came along somewhere along the line in the 2010s and caused me much confusion as the definition was a bit blurry and some pickup discussions rolled the Bay Boy into the ‘Chad ‘ type.

I don’t agree with that .
to me they are different from each other.
Just an aside ( may be irrelevant info that last piece)

 

[iceberg slim]

Take a few seconds to review your social life: do you have a decent social life in general? If not, fix that. Do you have parties or events you go to semi-regularly that give you contextual socializing with new people or people you don’t often meet? If not, fix that.

Great post! As an introvert, I certainly hope that one can get at least decent at the game without having a Casanova caliber social life. I know that if I had a bustling social life I would have no energy whatsoever for cold approach. I have a very limited amount of social energy and I need to be careful with how I spend it. Do I have some friends and social stuff going on? Yes. But not a lot, nor do I want a lot. If I hang out with a friend and then go on a date, I can feel on the date that I am struggling to show up because my social energy has been depleted.

And while I'm definitely a student of the game who makes plenty of mistakes, I often have really positive interactions with women. My daygame cold approach sessions are usually fun and leave me feeling good, even if I didn't get any numbers. I've even had a few very attractive women thank me for approaching them. And 9 of them have shagged me in the last year (my first year of doing serious day game), all at least somewhat cute or better.

So just wanted to add the counterpoint that it's OK to have a chill social life, while still agreeing that yes social skills are massively important (and I'm still working on mine, to be sure).

 

[Will_V]

Great post! As an introvert, I certainly hope that one can get at least decent at the game without having a Casanova caliber social life. I know that if I had a bustling social life I would have no energy whatsoever for cold approach. I have a very limited amount of social energy and I need to be careful with how I spend it. Do I have some friends and social stuff going on? Yes. But not a lot, nor do I want a lot. If I hang out with a friend and then go on a date, I can feel on the date that I am struggling to show up because my social energy has been depleted.

And while I'm definitely a student of the game who makes plenty of mistakes, I often have really positive interactions with women. My daygame cold approach sessions are usually fun and leave me feeling good, even if I didn't get any numbers. I've even had a few very attractive women thank me for approaching them. And 9 of them have shagged me in the last year (my first year of doing serious day game), all at least somewhat cute or better.

So just wanted to add the counterpoint that it's OK to have a chill social life, while still agreeing that yes social skills are massively important (and I'm still working on mine, to be sure).

Good point.

Having a social life and having great social skills isn't exactly the same thing, because seduction is almost entirely one-on-one, whereas most socializing occurs in groups that establish themselves with habits and routines over time. That's why I emphasized that socializing should be around new people or people you have limited social contact with already, and you want to be practicing short one-on-one conversations.

Many guys have friend groups they go out with, and they know how to behave and contribute socially within that group, but they are completely out of touch when interacting with someone one-on-one. They are unable to read, calibrate to, and influence an individual person, they only know how to occupy a position in a group. So their social experience is not particularly useful for seduction - in fact it can probably worsen it in some circumstances, since it would be easy for them to acquire the persona of their group position at the cost of their self expression.

I'm probably what you'd call a classic 'introvert' (although I have some problems with the way the term is defined) - I used to have pretty bad social anxiety, I'd feel tired and lethargic after social events, and all my life I've spent the vast majority of my time alone.

What I've noticed over time is that socializing can be a much better experience for me when I treat it as a series of one-on-one interactions with a purpose. In between these interactions, when I'm just hanging around socially, I focus on relaxing, going with the flow, staying present, and enjoying something about what's going on. But when someone is in front of me, I will close the scope of my awareness to them - I'll be curious about them, try to understand them, get a feel for the things that mean a lot to them, try to reflect back parts of them that people without my awareness wouldn't be able to reflect - things that validate their authentic internal identity - and establish a rapport that way. This is not fundamentally different from how my seductions begin.

But if I just hang around and try to act like an extrovert, who naturally kicks a lot of small balls around instead of passing a single one back and forth, it doesn't work very well.

In my opinion, the introvert's problem is not that they lose energy per se in social interactions, it's that they are absorbing and digesting tons of information that is useless and 'bloats' their mental faculties, and like anyone who eats too much and gets bloated, they feel lethargic and tired as their minds attempt to digest it all. What introverts must do instead is manage the scope of their awareness so that only what is useful reaches the threshold of their mental faculties, and everything else passes by without conscious attention. For an introvert, managing what is allowed to penetrate their consciousness is the key issue.

That's why an introvert can be an excellent performer - singer, actor, orator, etc - because when they are on stage, they are not the ones who are broadly receiving information, and most of their attention is on their own expression rather than their environment, so they never get 'bloated' from lots of information from their surroundings pouring into their consciousness.

 

[ChrisXKiss]

In my opinion, the introvert's problem is not that they lose energy per se in social interactions, it's that they are absorbing and digesting tons of information that is useless and 'bloats' their mental faculties, and like anyone who eats too much and gets bloated, they feel lethargic and tired as their minds attempt to digest it all. What introverts must do instead is manage the scope of their awareness so that only what is useful reaches the threshold of their mental faculties, and everything else passes by without conscious attention. For an introvert, managing what is allowed to penetrate their consciousness is the key issue.

I see what you mean here. One question I would have is how to go about managing or leading groups through this.

I don’t think I would personally care much about it, I prefer other people organising stuff and me kicking back and enjoying, that said I feel after following seduction advice for a while that I have to be seen as a leader in general to be more attractive.

And I get it one on one with a woman, but in a group apart from the fact that I won’t always be welcomed as a leader, either there is another one or they just don’t feel like letting me lead, I also feel I have to be constantly taking in all the information around if I want to manage what is happening. If I don’t do that and just chill, do my thing and maybe connect with few people one on one, it feels like I don’t care or contribute much, and I come off as more distant in general.

So I am just wondering what is the right mix, because even when I do try to contribute, for example offering help with organising a party, it feels a bit like I really try hard to be a part. And this confuses me, because I know that it is high value to give and I cannot just stay there and want to receive things, but it doesn’t seem that it brings many results. Maybe some people think you are nice and useful to have around, but not much more than that.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

How would you define a "Chad" and how did those "Chads" get good- same way, just hooking more easily, or is the learning process different for a 'Chad'?

I also need to start befirending the local art people, or at least schmoozing, for my art career. Very motivating that this is also a key step in getting good with girls. Should've been obvious, but still, that's why I come to the forum.

I believe Chads just lose their V-plates at a much earlier age.
They learn to “get their dick out” and ask for sex from chicks much earlier then as a consequence. As girls chase good looking Chads since he was a lil boy. probably.

 

[Will_V]

@ChrisXKiss there's a good article on different approaches to seduction, in relation to group dynamics.

I see what you mean here. One question I would have is how to go about managing or leading groups through this.

The way I see it, in social settings, authority is very much a product of your ability to create rapport and lead interactions in the direction you want them to go, and not so much about your rank.

I'm sure we've all been in a workplace or group of some kind where someone was the ranking leader, but there was someone else who everyone knew was the real chief - the person everyone instinctively looked to for validation, reassurance, a sense of security, personal direction, etc, while paying lip service to the ranking leader.

I was just reading the biography of the actress Lauren Bacall. She ended up getting together with Humphrey Bogart when she was 19 and he was 44. They met on the set of her first movie, and the movie director (who she liked and respected) was this very alpha, controlling, mind-game-playing sort who was clearly in charge of both her and Bogart. But Bogart, as it became very clear in the book, was someone with far more social skill and finesse, who could maneuver and manage his relationships with all kinds of different people very well, and she quickly started looking to him (Bogart) for validation and reassurance - and eventually for his genes as well - while learning to make the director feel like he was the one in charge and in control.

This is not an uncommon situation. Women especially are very attuned to men's actual social abilities, and not ranks. Because they know instinctively (being nature's reproductive agents) that while a man can prop up his rank for a while, sooner or later - if he doesn't have the actual ability to hold it - it will either be taken by someone else who is more capable, or it will at least find expansion difficult. Women and nature are interested in the realizing of potential, not in upholding the status quo.

That's why a young guy might be a broke bum, but if a girl sees innate capability and resilience and drive in him, she will attempt to find a way to help bring about the realization of that potential, including with the use of her pussy.

...

The other thing with groups is that the social power you get from being its leader is mainly only relevant to the context of the group itself. If a woman wants to be the alpha female, she has to get the alpha male. But maybe she, like you, only carries weak ties to the group and doesn't want to be the alpha female either. In this instance she will be far more receptive to demonstrations of actual social ability and skill, and signs of unrealized potential, rather than the 'who's who' of the group.

And if she is neck deep in the group dynamics, because her relationship with the leader of the group is also tied closely with her position in it, she's going to be a lot more wary of doing anything that might put her position at risk, such as hooking up with him and then finding herself dumped. Whereas she may be open to secret trysts with other members of the group, especially if those members are socially adept and not going to do anything stupid.

I feel after following seduction advice for a while that I have to be seen as a leader in general to be more attractive.

No, it's not the case, but you will find it harder to get together with women who have strong ties to the group if you aren't its leader.

Remember, seduction is about illegitimacy, secret rendezvous, the excitement of getting away with things and breaking taboo, and so on - how is being the boss going to help bring about that sort of situation? She can't break the rules with you if you are the rules. Framing is important.

And I get it one on one with a woman, but in a group apart from the fact that I won’t always be welcomed as a leader, either there is another one or they just don’t feel like letting me lead, I also feel I have to be constantly taking in all the information around if I want to manage what is happening. If I don’t do that and just chill, do my thing and maybe connect with few people one on one, it feels like I don’t care or contribute much, and I come off as more distant in general.

I think being curious and interested in people makes up for a lot of this. If people like you and trust you, and generally feel like you have a position of authority with them personally (which can be as simple as demonstrating a deeper understanding and awareness of them than what other people can demonstrate) then you will always hold something of a position of ambiguous authority with them that transcends the group itself.

Think of it like being the mystic or soothsayer in ancient times - nobody can really place his rank relative to others, because he connects with each person within a domain entirely outside of the scope of the group. So it is with people who are capable of connecting with others individually at a deeper level.

So I am just wondering what is the right mix, because even when I do try to contribute, for example offering help with organising a party, it feels a bit like I really try hard to be a part. And this confuses me, because I know that it is high value to give and I cannot just stay there and want to receive things, but it doesn’t seem that it brings many results. Maybe some people think you are nice and useful to have around, but not much more than that.

The worst thing you can do in a group is to appear to be trying to clamber up the hierarchical ladder, especially if you're failing to make much progress. That's why guys who jostle and shove their way around are never respected anywhere near as much as those leaders who appear to do it more out of graciousness than hunger for power.

If you're going to do something for the group, do it out of the spontaneous desire to benefit everyone and contribute to a group that benefits you as its member, not because you want to stay somewhere near the top. Leaders are not elected, nor are individuals liked, for the labor they have invested, but because people desire something only they can provide.

...

And also, if you are in a group and you aren't the leader, don't be afraid to show the leader plenty of consideration. It doesn't make you weak unless you act like it makes you weak. Leaders have a lot of responsibility, and what they do is often more of a sacrifice than a satisfaction, since they have to deal with all the problems of the group and there is no one to hand it off to.

Leaders generally enjoy being around, and are happy to lift up, individuals who are are able to make them and everyone else feel good, and who can improve the bonds between members, without upsetting the pecking order. That's something that doesn't cost very much for a socially skillful person, and can get them through a lot of doors very fast.

And women love nothing more than men who can get through doors fast that most men struggle to open.

 

[FAB DRONES]

I believe Chads just lose their V-plates at a much earlier age.
They learn to “get their dick out” and ask for sex from chicks much earlier then as a consequence. As girls chase good looking Chads since he was a lil boy. probably.

That can't be the definition of a Chad. That would be a natural, my friend.

I like the Alpha Jock stereotype, that's pretty good. Bad Boy, idk that's the thing, do I even know anyone named Chad?

The meme is a gigachad, basically looks like a cartoon warrior. Not sure if came from meme or manosphere.

But I like the idea of High School Quarterback.

Would it be too incongrous of me to start channeling my inner highschool quarterback? That's just not me (who I've been so far it artsy-fartsy) and it's incongrous to the artist thing, I feel, but it gives me a way to interact normally (talking about sports), but weirdly I've been getting into sports probably just from the extra testosterone. I'm also doing it on purpose because of this theory, Jocks automatically get girls. Now I can't go back in time and be a jock, but I can do this now. I've been accumulating sports equipment slowly. Got my first regulation football and been tossing it around in my back yard. It's my new weird obsession. If only I could take the obsessions timeline much faster and more focused. Also I feel weird about doing it in public sometimes. My FWB said it was like the cringiest most unnatractive things ever that I sometimes go hit baseeballs by myself. Not sure if it the alone part, the hardball part, the old part, or that she is the type that thinks sports are stupid, no-just hates sports.

Yeah, so I do feel somewhat incongrous because I am an kind of an intellectual and I kind of am the same as her and think sports are stupid.

But the question would be, is this even a good strategy, to try to become more- 'jocular' so to speak.

I thought the whole idea of pickup, what i'm being sold on here, it that you can be (to take from the meme world) a SIGMA, or whatever that means. LIteerally my boss asked me if I was a Sigma. Because I don't care to one-up anyone, I don't status jockey, and I really don't care about anyone or find them all that pleasant or amusing. I don't want to be the alpha, but I'm not playing beta to anyone's alpha either. Some would say I am an anti-social outcast, but the whole thing is we're supposed to believe that this is possible, if you wanna be that guy, and you can swoop into any nest any take the choisest female. Even better than the kings of yore.

I believe they call it a lone wolf, and you can see, my boss thought I was a Sigma. I think I said NO. I suppose I fancy myself that, but honestly I feel like if youre not getting tons of pussy then youre deluding yourself. I'm just a poorly socialized person. I think maybe, I want to be normal, but if this lone wolf thing doesn't mean i'm damaged, its just a way to be, i've always bounced around from group to group, the interbetween of cliques. sorta, tho, it's probably a lack of wanting to be in a little social pyarmid. I also always hated the little interatcions of status. LIke it's an effront the ideals of equality. But thats the reality. And then when I was on the side of being the cool guy, the higher status guy, and people get nervous, it bothers me. But think about it, when you are weak, and you see a big studly guy, I mean, you would naturally get nervous, I'm not saying that's me, i'm like a average middle of the road sdude, but so ive seen both side of it. of course social pressure can be even more, I am so not cool. OK this is a rant. my point here is that when youre getting people nervous in front of you, it bothered me, but now I'm accepting it's the way of people.

and so i get it, socializing would be good. Yeah. Imagine if I was cool, I could befriend the college kids but no I have to go in and snipe one hot girl.

(hmmmm that is more efficient...but could you ever bang all the chicks on campus without dealing with social circle? Well they are treating me as a viable social option. I guess I don't seem older enough.)

But just in general. I do need to go to these social things that I've been avoiding.

 

[ChrisXKiss]

This is not an uncommon situation. Women especially are very attuned to men's actual social abilities, and not ranks. Because they know instinctively (being nature's reproductive agents) that while a man can prop up his rank for a while, sooner or later - if he doesn't have the actual ability to hold it - it will either be taken by someone else who is more capable, or it will at least find expansion difficult. Women and nature are interested in the realizing of potential, not in upholding the status quo.

Yeah I understand this. I feel what I really meant was to how to really be considered a leader, whether you have an official position or not.

I have experienced it with other people as you say, and also for myself, it doesn’t seem to matter what position I have in a group, the results do not change and I can see that women instinctively judge me as not socially capable mostly.

So that is my issue, I don’t fully understand what it means to be the effective outsider from the article.

The way I see it, in social settings, authority is very much a product of your ability to create rapport and lead interactions in the direction you want them to go, and not so much about your rank

Basically how to do this. It feels that if you have the rank everything you do seems try hard and like you are using your rank to get things, while if you don’t have the rank it stills feels try hard, because you are trying to punch above your weight when you know you should not to.

Maybe it’s a problem with my mindset, but it’s really difficult to show considerations to leaders without looking weak since I know I am at their pecking order. For example with the director and the actor, no matter what the actor does, the director has the final word.

On the other hand, if I am the leader by rank it’s difficult not to think that people follow me just because of the rank. I know I don’t have any real control over the others and they can leave whenever they want. In the same example, the actor could just decline a specific scene or even leave from the movie if boundaries are crossed.

I know these two views logically show that in neither position you should feel weak, it’s another thing feeling it emotionally though.

I feel I am struggling a lot to find how to act in order for people to look at me for validation. Maybe in a way I am constantly looking at them for validation so the opposite is impossible to happen. I feel it has to do with being fully at peace and having accepted yourself, but it’s difficult to do when for example you know you want women but the results show you don’t get them. Can you be self-validated when not achieving the goals you set?

I think being curious and interested in people makes up for a lot of this. If people like you and trust you, and generally feel like you have a position of authority with them personally (which can be as simple as demonstrating a deeper understanding and awareness of them than what other people can demonstrate) then you will always hold something of a position of ambiguous authority with them that transcends the group itself.

This I do understand, it goes back to a discussion we had some time ago in another post about how to be authentically curious about people and appreciate them.

It’s probably something I have to start pushing myself to do consciously, because after years of conditioning myself, I basically barely connect with people unless I am clearly doing something like a seduction, or they come up to me and have the patience to connect themselves.

My idea had always been that it is too intrusive to try and find out personal and deep things about the other person, and why would they even care sharing them. Maybe in fact I knew subconsciously where it would lead and I just didn’t want to hold power over them in any way, by having them really like me, or feel I am interested. I just didn’t want any responsibility like that.

But this is surely not an effective strategy when socialising and seducing, basically people feel that you think you are above them and don’t care. I tried changing it, then it started feeling I am too needy to connect and get to know them, so I guess it needs some calibration regarding when and how to connect with someone in a deeper way. And it works the same with groups, calibrating the interest and participation, so that it feels you care but not that you are trying to achieve something.

 

[FAB DRONES]

That article's the typical sort of semi-mainstream gander at covering pickup, going straight to taking potshots at peacocking and negging, and treating the whole thing as some sort of joke. I don't see a grasp of any substantial aspect of seduction there at all.

I prefer to think of the problem in a different way. The greatest enemy of any student is their own ego, and the first lesson in any domain of skill is the lesson of humility - the humility to accept where you are at, and the humility to accept what you have to invest before reaching your desired goal.

When someone has a fragile ego, what they are most fearful of is failing at very basic things. They don't really care if they fail at advanced stuff, because they know it's beyond them. So, to protect their ego, what they will do is avoid basic stuff and attempt only advanced stuff, so that when they fail, their ego is not under threat - because after all the advanced stuff is very difficult, and they weren't expected to succeed anyway.

Someone with a stable ego understands that such thinking is their enemy, so they will discipline themselves to train the basic, fundamental stuff all the time, and accept that even at the basic stuff they might fail embarrassingly, but eventually they will build a strong foundation and reach more advanced stuff as well.

Someone with a very strong ego goes and tries advanced stuff so that they understand the reality of how weak they are, allows the experience to humble them with fire, and uses the shame of failure to motivate them to grind through eating all their vegetables in the knowledge that it's the only way to get through.

Regardless of how you do it, at the end of the day, the only student that fails long-term is the first one, whose ego precludes them from training the basics at all.

The practical reality of seduction is that until you are in the bedroom, you spend 99% of the time communicating, and most guys communication is very poor. The most basic tenet of social communication is self-control, to stay cool and affable under pressure, and I believe this is where most failed approaches go wrong. There's no point learning how to wave your wand if you can't hold onto it.

A guy in this situation, where maybe he's starting off with a baseline of negative emotion, keeps getting rejected and going on emotional rollercoasters, needs to figure out how to positively interact with people in general in all kinds of social situations, in sexual and non-sexual contexts. He needs to learn how to 'tread water' socially so to speak so he's not thrashing around making a mess and giving himself bad experiences, so that when he feels like things are getting away from him, he knows how to return to a zone of familiar competence.

Amazing post. Thank you. I love the expression "tread water'. I will think of that next time I go to a bar. It seems that's what most people are doing there.

I definitively have a big ego. I am guilty of trying advanced tricks when I am not advanced. For example, I read elite eye contact and of course couldn't resist doing it without having put in the basics. It worked like a charm but of course I didn't get laid.

So I got to eat my vegetables. Fruits, too? JK

I'm definitely going back and doing the newbie challenge. I'm a bit of a self-taught advanced beginner, I wouldn't even say I'm intermediate, tho I don't really know. I'm assuming going back to newbie is totally a good idea.

Staying cool and affable is basically my #1 sticking point.

Yeah I can see how I'm just returning to my baseline which is very anxious, so with a girl, even trying to be cool, eventually I freak out, and so I need to fix my baseline.

I don't know if I should have been reading that article, because of the school of thought that you don't want to immerse yourself in negativity and especially the opposite of the goal you are working on. I didn't end up going out that weekend (alone).

I suppose I was trying to play devil's advocate, but I thought, maybe, that was helping your point (aspiring puas don't need "game" they need friends to go out with) but obviously you are coming at this from a different angle.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

That can't be the definition of a Chad. That would be a natural, my friend.

I like the Alpha Jock stereotype, that's pretty good. Bad Boy, idk that's the thing, do I even know anyone named Chad?

The meme is a gigachad, basically looks like a cartoon warrior. Not sure if came from meme or manosphere.
.

MrMan
Re “that would be a natural “ comment.

And why wouldn’t it be a Chads experience also growing up?

a ‘natural’ is a very broad term - that cuts across all types of guy

that relates to the age when a guy loses his Virginity. The earlier that was (for whatever reason) the Moreso odds that a guy will be a ‘Natural’ later in his life,

someone like Tommy Lee from Motley Crüe for example - would have been a natural but a ‘bad boy’ type as a teenager, He was very tall with a big dick but not a Chad per se as not a jock but a rocker teenage guy.

also actor Jack Nicholson was a natural.
I think it can also be a case of ‘ surrounded by women from youth’ and exposure to womens sexuality early to gain and understanding type deal.

I mistakenly thought Nicholson was raised in a whore house , some urban legend maybe or I got confused.

did some quick googling and that was no Nicholson but comedian Richard Pryor .
Pryors mother was a madam of a brothel and he was raised there when young.
he almost certainly was a ‘natural ‘ and was a known womaniser and cheater of many marriages and kids. His father was a boxer hustler and pimp also (wow!)

Of actors Warren Beatty would have been the ultimate Chad of his day. He was a NFL jock as a teen and a notoriously good looking one ( ‘you’re so vain ‘ was a song written about him and his looks and vanity/ playerism by Carly Simon).
Beatty was actually mentioned in the book The Game .. he was ‘gaming’ Courtney Love over the phone she told Strauss.

It’s a same Strauss didn’t interview *Him*!

when I read the word Chad I think of a z Warren Beatty type immediately.

 

[iceberg slim]

Many guys have friend groups they go out with, and they know how to behave and contribute socially within that group, but they are completely out of touch when interacting with someone one-on-one. They are unable to read, calibrate to, and influence an individual person, they only know how to occupy a position in a group. So their social experience is not particularly useful for seduction - in fact it can probably worsen it in some circumstances, since it would be easy for them to acquire the persona of their group position at the cost of their self expression.

I like how you explained that--that actually helps me pinpoint why I don't particularly like group socializing and in fact I often find it quite annoying. It seems to lack authenticity, and is instead a lot of posturing, bragging, ladder climbing, social policing, small talk and group thinking. It's about fitting in instead of being real. A lot of "small balls" BS in my opinion, to use your term.

What I've noticed over time is that socializing can be a much better experience for me when I treat it as a series of one-on-one interactions with a purpose. In between these interactions, when I'm just hanging around socially, I focus on relaxing, going with the flow, staying present, and enjoying something about what's going on. But when someone is in front of me, I will close the scope of my awareness to them - I'll be curious about them, try to understand them, get a feel for the things that mean a lot to them, try to reflect back parts of them that people without my awareness wouldn't be able to reflect - things that validate their authentic internal identity - and establish a rapport that way. This is not fundamentally different from how my seductions begin.

But if I just hang around and try to act like an extrovert, who naturally kicks a lot of small balls around instead of passing a single one back and forth, it doesn't work very well.

In my opinion, the introvert's problem is not that they lose energy per se in social interactions, it's that they are absorbing and digesting tons of information that is useless and 'bloats' their mental faculties, and like anyone who eats too much and gets bloated, they feel lethargic and tired as their minds attempt to digest it all. What introverts must do instead is manage the scope of their awareness so that only what is useful reaches the threshold of their mental faculties, and everything else passes by without conscious attention. For an introvert, managing what is allowed to penetrate their consciousness is the key issue.

Wow, that is a brilliant way to think about socializing! I'm going to have to try to apply that. I'm impressed.

 

[Rakehell]

To me this is a well meaning yet misguided/nearly pretentious way of putting things.

If you put 20c in your piggy bank every day for 365 days, at the end of the year, sure as that piggy is pink, you’ll have $73. And if you pull the lever on a slot machine enough times, you can be absolutely sure of a certain number of wins (assuming the machine isn’t rigged!).

Seduction is neither of those things. The only thing you can be sure about is that if you don’t do it well enough, you won’t get dates and you won’t get laid.

This is where I take issue, and maybe it’s a misunderstanding, though, I doubt it, since it’s right there in plain english.

“Seduction” “Getting Laid” “Getting pussy” is in fact probability. Same goes for sales, making friends, anything that involves consent from something other than yourself.

Even with great social skills you will still have to roll the dice, and you will still crap out. Just the way it is.

To save a long winded elaboration that wasn’t asked for , you don’t need to have “god tier” social skills to foster relationships with any particular girl that you’d be attracted to.

Most people aren’t socially dysfunctional in that way where they have to chase a vaguely defined level of social skill.

Every chick isn’t going to go for you, I don’t give a fuck if you’re Hank Moody.

-Rakey

 

[Will_V]

To me this is a well meaning yet misguided/nearly pretentious way of putting things.

This is where I take issue, and maybe it’s a misunderstanding, though, I doubt it, since it’s right there in plain english.

“Seduction” “Getting Laid” “Getting pussy” is in fact probability. Same goes for sales, making friends, anything that involves consent from something other than yourself.

Even with great social skills you will still have to roll the dice, and you will still crap out. Just the way it is.

To save a long winded elaboration that wasn’t asked for , you don’t need to have “god tier” social skills to foster relationships with any particular girl that you’d be attracted to.

Most people aren’t socially dysfunctional in that way where they have to chase a vaguely defined level of social skill.

Every chick isn’t going to go for you, I don’t give a fuck if you’re Hank Moody.

-Rakey

The point I was making there is that if you keep making the same mistakes over and over in seduction, it doesn't 'add up' to eventually being able to consistently succeed. You can only consistently succeed by doing things well over and over again.

You're right that seduction involves a level of probability, but it is far from being all probability. And to the extent that it's not probability, your social skills matter a lot.

If a guy who has no social life keeps going up to girls with a tense, anxious demeanor, and keeps getting immediately rejected across 100+ approaches, the only way he's going to improve is by learning to present himself as a cheerful, smooth social animal. But it's hard to make that change if he's already feeling dejected, having trained himself to believe that he's going to get rejected all the time.

So he needs to spend some time learning basic social skills as well - how to stay affable in social situations, how to introduce himself smoothly, how to give social value, how to ask about others and how to talk about himself, etc - many of which can be trained much more comfortably and effectively in other social situations.

I think especially problematic for someone with little or no social life is learning how to meet people without an agenda. When all your social interactions involve coming in locked onto the pussy, you end up with this 'hungry dog' look that girls can immediately spot. And when you add the anxiety of having been rejected already over and over again, you get a dude that looks like a hungry, beaten dog - which is possibly the worst way to come across in any social or seductive environment.

To save a long winded elaboration that wasn’t asked for , you don’t need to have “god tier” social skills to foster relationships with any particular girl that you’d be attracted to.

I'm not sure where I gave off this notion, let me know if there was a comment of mine that specifically said this.

Guys do not need to become an expert in social skills before meeting girls, they just need to have a reference point of recent social experiences to train up their basic instincts and reflexes, and to make sure that they aren't shooting themselves in the foot when they go and meet a girl they like.

 

[Will_V]

Yeah I understand this. I feel what I really meant was to how to really be considered a leader, whether you have an official position or not.

I have experienced it with other people as you say, and also for myself, it doesn’t seem to matter what position I have in a group, the results do not change and I can see that women instinctively judge me as not socially capable mostly.

So that is my issue, I don’t fully understand what it means to be the effective outsider from the article.


Basically how to do this. It feels that if you have the rank everything you do seems try hard and like you are using your rank to get things, while if you don’t have the rank it stills feels try hard, because you are trying to punch above your weight when you know you should not to.

Maybe it’s a problem with my mindset, but it’s really difficult to show considerations to leaders without looking weak since I know I am at their pecking order. For example with the director and the actor, no matter what the actor does, the director has the final word.

On the other hand, if I am the leader by rank it’s difficult not to think that people follow me just because of the rank. I know I don’t have any real control over the others and they can leave whenever they want. In the same example, the actor could just decline a specific scene or even leave from the movie if boundaries are crossed.

I know these two views logically show that in neither position you should feel weak, it’s another thing feeling it emotionally though.

I feel I am struggling a lot to find how to act in order for people to look at me for validation. Maybe in a way I am constantly looking at them for validation so the opposite is impossible to happen. I feel it has to do with being fully at peace and having accepted yourself, but it’s difficult to do when for example you know you want women but the results show you don’t get them. Can you be self-validated when not achieving the goals you set?


This I do understand, it goes back to a discussion we had some time ago in another post about how to be authentically curious about people and appreciate them.

It’s probably something I have to start pushing myself to do consciously, because after years of conditioning myself, I basically barely connect with people unless I am clearly doing something like a seduction, or they come up to me and have the patience to connect themselves.

My idea had always been that it is too intrusive to try and find out personal and deep things about the other person, and why would they even care sharing them. Maybe in fact I knew subconsciously where it would lead and I just didn’t want to hold power over them in any way, by having them really like me, or feel I am interested. I just didn’t want any responsibility like that.

But this is surely not an effective strategy when socialising and seducing, basically people feel that you think you are above them and don’t care. I tried changing it, then it started feeling I am too needy to connect and get to know them, so I guess it needs some calibration regarding when and how to connect with someone in a deeper way. And it works the same with groups, calibrating the interest and participation, so that it feels you care but not that you are trying to achieve something.

@ChrisXKiss when you feel a deep sense of insecurity about how other people think of you or how they react to you, it's a result of having a weak identity. This is something pretty much every male struggles with at some point in their lives.

Your identity is who you feel that you are at your core, irrespective of your current circumstances or any kind of social feedback. It determines your ability to go after opportunities, to respond properly to threats and temptations, to conduct yourself consistently in chaotic or adverse circumstances. It is where you go when there is nowhere else to go. It is like a map for how to navigate through complete darkness.

I've found that especially guys who are 'nice guys', or who have otherwise spent their lives in the service of other people's wants and desires, typically have a much weakened identity. When no one is telling them what to do, they don't know who they are or what they really want, because they've never leaned on or listened to their own identity.

Good leaders always have a strong identity, and that is the thing that other people want to rest against. The experience of having responsibility for a mistake is for many people - and especially women - almost unbearable. For example, when I used to go sailing with my girlfriend, she was happy to help with pulling up the sails or doing anything else, but she hated taking the tiller. Because the tiller represents responsibility and the potential for steering directly into a disaster. On the other hand, I enjoyed being at the tiller, because I know that I can rely on myself and that I won't fall apart even if something goes wrong. Because I have a strong identity that has already survived many difficult situations.

To develop a stronger identity, I think the main things are:

- Test yourself in a variety of difficult or chaotic circumstances
- Set some big goals and achieve them
- Develop routines that reinforce and remind you of your own identity
- Take on responsibility involving people whose success you care about

These things help you figure out who you really are. And when you know who you are, people who are unsure of themselves will naturally look to you for guidance, for a map they can't find within themselves.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

To me, at my age.

the absolute best way to learn pickup is to find a guy who is good somehow( by hook or by crook) befriend him and go out with him. Watching a dude in action IRL beats any other way of learning (obvs) .
It’s hard to find these guys tbh
But I think some guys forget this with a DIY ( and maybe too proud) approach.

there’s are a few legit good coaches out there working for bootcamps and one on ones I think… but few and far between.
Just a few .

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

This is an interesting video,
This guy is quite Chad -like , tall buff and handsome. Kinda debunks the BP theory of “all girls wanna bang Chad”

Would you experienced guys say is this guys ‘sticking points’..from these interactions?

where is he going wrong?

 

[Chase]

where is he going wrong?

Where's he not?

• Opening from back/sides where girls can't fully or even see him before he starts to talk
• Chasing after girls who don't open trying to open from back or sides as they walk away
• Defensive body language (arms held in front of himself as he talks, protecting himself)
• Monotone, inexpressive voice
• Generic, repetitive openers ("Excuse me... excuse me... excuse me..." "Do you speak English?")
• Rehearsed/scripted vibe ("I know this is super spontaneous..." delivered in a very practiced way)
• Neo-direct "shoot your shot" game ("Can I sit down?" within seconds of opening with no feedback at all from girls; "You caught my eye... you can only ask out one girl" within seconds of opening)

I give this guy props for trying. Many guys do not have the balls to try day game at all.

He appears to have general social awareness, so if he keeps at it he will start to figure the rules out over time.

But this guy needs to find a wing who's been doing it for a while or sign up with a coach.

Right now he is just running straight up neo-direct -- that'll get him girls who are already initially interested but not much else.

Trouble with Neo-Direct

A way of approaching women that eschews pickup tactics/strategy. Men practicing neo-direct simply go up to girls and “shoot their shot.”

www.girlschase.com

Chase

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

Where's he not?

Great breakdown.

I would state his issues this way ( I’m just an old dude)
Women have a great radar for a man’s vibe and intention - like you listed from voice tone, body language and also facial expression on approach.

they can tell in a flash a guys intention.

his intention seems to be just validation as he is so clumsy.

I thought perhaps his looks May counter act this and add value to his impression but obviously not.

I think a chicks first concern being approached is Safety. “What does this guy want ?”

he’s definitely not paying attention to that.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

Where's he not?

Im old school and not that familiar with new terms.
For me, to approach in public/ daygame .
My intention would be (as cheesy as this sounds) “Love”.
Ie ‘I Love Women’ and I am pumped / very impressed /floored by their beauty.

must a bit Zan Perrion but that’s where I’d start with Intention . Just me.