Strategic Calibration - The Key to mPUA?

[Teevster]

Well maybe I was mistaken, the premise or pragmatics of this thread is strategy being the key to mpua. My post wasn’t specifically aimed at you, but the discussion in general.

The thead title and the op were framed as questions, thus not asserting anything. It means it is up for debate. Mist asked the question because many veterans tend to be all about strategy, myself included.

You are welcome to make a thread "State - The key to mPUA?" or change the word state with whatever you like - just make sure to defend your case if you have any strong conviction. Otherwise, leave it as a question (although a question with some content) like Mist did.

-Teevster

 

[Rakehell]

The thead title was framed as a question, thus not asserting anything. It means it is up for debate. Mist asked the question because many veterans tend to be all about strategy, myself included.

Yea I did notice the title of the thread has been edited. But even still it has been asserted that “inner game” is a pissing contest.

My post was my retort, therefore it still stands. Agree or disagree, I do disagree. Because they both matter.

 

[Teevster]

Yea I did notice the title of the thread has been edited. But even still it has been asserted that “inner game” is a pissing contest.

My post was my retort, therefore it still stands. Agree or disagree, I do disagree. Because they both matter.

I have my reservations in regards to "inner game", although I don't think this is the right place to attack inner game - this I agree with. Still, the way inner game was discussed was not relevant to subject at hand - strategy - I think it was mentioned because someone brought it up and it was off-topic, and thus it got shut down - but I could be wrong (did not re-read people's comments here).

And if that was the issue, why did you not quote the poster and the paragraph saying that, instead of "attacking" strategic calibration/strategic decision-making? That still makes little sense.

Anyway...

(The edit to the thread-title was the adding of the word "Strategic Calibration" in order to better reflect the content of the OP).

-Teevster

 

[Chase]

Leaving aside the semantics debate (@Rakehell, no need to debate semantics when the thread posters are already in agreement... if you're unclear on their meaning, then what you post is, "How are we defining 'strategy' for this thread? Sorry if this is pedantic, because there's a few different ways to define that and to me from reading the thread it isn't clear")...

Imagine you have a guy whose sole talent is that he always happens to find himself in intimate, sexy, isolated conversations with attractive girls, and always somehow ends up with those girls alone at his place, getting turned on by him, a couple of times per week. Maybe he isn't much to look at and can't even well explain how he does it. It doesn't matter. He is going to get laid, a lot, and his strategy for getting girls into those intimate, sexy, isolated conversations and back at his place all turned on is what you should be interested in.

Most guys will focus on the man: "What does he look like? What kind of shirt is he wearing? How does he style his hair?" or the man's tactics: "Does he use negs? Does he use XYZ technique?" Etc. Often they are asking this either to disqualify themselves ("Oh... he has a nose ring. I don't have a nose ring. Therefore it wouldn't work for me") or because they think the tactics are the secret ("Aha! I just need to start negging girls, then I can get laid a lot too!").

BUT... if you really want to mirror the guy's results, you need to know WHAT he is doing to keep ending up in such a good position with girls, at a strategic level, and WHY he does it (plus why it works so well).

That is the strategy element of things.

Tactics are less important if you have really good strategy.

Fundamentals are less important if you have really good strategy.

When you see guys who get laid a lot who are not all that attractive and don't seem to have a lot of proper tactics, those are guys (as just one example) who tend to have excellent, well thought-out strategies you will get a lot out of mirroring.

Chase

 

[Teevster]

Here is a great report by Spyce D showcasing the result of disregarding strategy. Would better game and fundamentals have helped? Perhaps, but very unlikely.

Would his night have gone smoother, been more fun and more prone to success if he had strategized a bit more? 100% yes.

-Teevster

 

[Spyce D]

Here is a great report by Spyce D showcasing the result of disregarding strategy. Would better game and fundamentals have helped? Perhaps, but very unlikely.

Would his night have gone smoother, been more fun and more prone to success if he had strategized a bit more? 100% yes.

-Teevster

Funny thing is that @mist wrote this post around the time ...I decided to leave the venue for my location cuz the night was over , the night was empty.

And when I saw what @Teevster wrote in one of the replies here to @BIGGUS DICKUS: PUSSY MAN .... everything made a lot of sense .

That's why , I decided to write that report and link this post with it .

 

[King]

Great discussion.

@Chase and @Teevster when using the word "strategy" it seems a lot of terms are being used interchangeably here. What specifically are you guys regarding as "strategy?"

Tactics, technique, state management, fundamentals, handling logistics, social proof etc can all be apart of ones strategy

Tactics are less important if you have really good strategy.
Fundamentals are less important if you have really good strategy.

and so...

When you see guys who get laid a lot who are not all that attractive and don't seem to have a lot of proper tactics, those are guys (as just one example) who tend to have excellent, well thought-out strategies you will get a lot out of mirroring.

what exactly would be mirroring/studying from these guys if they don't have those other things such as proper tactics etc?

so here...

This metaphore is exactly what tends to happen. Only difference between the new PUA and the carpenter is that the carpenter realizes he screwed up by bringing the wrong tools. The newbe PUA don't, and instead will feel frustrated and demoralized.

So then you are saying that using the right tactics, techniques are part of a puas "tools," which is sort of neutralized by what chase wrote.

There are a lot of opinions and tons of ideas floating around in this thread so some clarification would be awesome on what you guys are referring to specifically when you talk about "strategy"

But my conclusion is something that I've been pondering more of lately

Essentially what you guys are trying to say summed up, is that you're referring to strategy as the name of this thread implies "strategic calibration." More specifically being adaptable and calibrating according to the needs of your set, point of process/interaction. Injecting the specific techniques/methods required to take your prospect from point A to Z. And also perhaps managing environmental/social, venue, wildcard factors when needed.

If that is correct, then yes I do agree as this in itself can overtake your need for most other things (not disregarding them) required in game.

This just sort of becomes common sense once you enter intermediate territory

 

[Teevster]

@Chase and @Teevster when using the word "strategy" it seems a lot of terms are being used interchangeably here. What specifically are you guys regarding as "strategy?"

The overall definition is "having a plan on how you want to get laid" - what material will you use? what tactic, what material? in what venue? on what set? with what overall vibe?

It is the "overlying" decision-making aspect. Chase's point was that the right strategy can be more important than tactics (which has traditionally been defined as an "in-set strategy") .

You can have the macro-perspective: venue selection, logistics, who you go out with, etc.
You can have the meso-perspective: In venue strategies.
and lastly, the micro perspective, i.e. - calibrating to the girl/group....

Usually when discussing strategies one usually discuss the macro and the meso perspective. This distinction is one I made up for clarification purposes. If you do not want to use this distinction, then use the classic definition which is basically the mix between "meso" and "macro" used intertwinely.

Back in the days, things were easier because people understood the lingo... and if they don't they were requested to read up.

-Teevster

 

[Teevster]

Also, in ordinary language there is a difference between tactics and strategies. The terms are taken from the military lexicon, and the terms are pretty clearly defined. Those terms have been extrapolated to other fields, including business administration, politial science, and yes... pick up and seduction.


All one has to do is to type: www.google.com and type in the search bar "strategy vs tactics", and scroll down and click on the numerous suggested page, as per the instructions below.



I don't know what to say or make out of this. I am a bit baffled at this point.

-Teevster

 

[foggy]

what i care about when it comes to developing my strategic calibration is tailoring myself to the archetype of the girl. a general example, the strategy you will need for the aggressive hardened girl is different than the strategy you need for the shy family girl.

 

[King]

The overall definition is "having a plan on how you want to get laid" - what material will you use? what tactic, what material? in what venue? on what set? with what overall vibe?

It is the "overlying" decision-making aspect. Chase's point was that the right strategy can be more important than tactics (which has traditionally been defined as an "in-set strategy") .

You can have the macro-perspective: venue selection, logistics, who you go out with, etc.
You can have the meso-perspective: In venue strategy
and lastly, the micro perspective, i.e. tactics - in set strategies.

Usually when discussing strategies one usually discuss the macro and the meso perspective. This distinction is one I made up for clarification purposes. If you do not want to use this distinction, then use the classic definition which is basically the mix between "meso" and "macro" used intertwinely.

Back in the days, things were easier because people understood the lingo... and if they don't they were requested to read up.

-Teevster

Fantastic explanation. Thanks.

Also, in ordinary language there is a difference between tactics and strategies. The terms are taken from the military lexicon, and the terms are pretty clearly defined. Those terms have been extrapolated to other fields, including business administration, politial science, and yes... pick up and seduction.


All one has to do is to type: www.google.com and type in the search bar "strategy vs tactics", and scroll down and click on the numerous suggested page, as per the instructions below.

View attachment 323

I don't know what to say or make out of this. I am a bit baffled at this point.

-Teevster

Should not be baffling at all. As mentioned, I asked what specifically should one be trying to study and or mirror about one’s strategy if not the tactics?(As chase mentioned they aren’t the most important) The behavior patterns? The handling logistics? The fundamentals? (However one could say these are all be tactics) Which are part of the overarching portions of a complete strategy. As there was so much unclear ideas floating I was a little baffled myself as to what points people were trying to make and some people just stopped replying to this thread completely. Which is why I asked due to all the superfluous amounts of great ideas posted. But thanks your explanation works

 

[Teevster]

what i care about when it comes to developing my strategic calibration is tailoring myself to the archetype of the girl. a general example, the strategy you will need for the aggressive hardened girl is different than the strategy you need for the shy family girl.

I see where you are going with this. I personally tend to refer to this as in-set calibration, as I prefer to avoid too much pre-planning on how to seduce a particular girl/type of girl before I am actually dealing with the girl in person, in real time. For this reason I tend focus primarily on context in my strategic decision-making rather than the girl/type of girl. This is because the context, the setting, the venue, is epistemically speaking more accessible - I can disect more easily what I am dealing with and how to deal with it (perhaps not always right away, but after a few outings in X context).

I am personally skeptical using pre-determined female archetypes in pick up and seduction, and also more in general. Why? because of the golden rule from Ross Jeffries: "I do not care who she is, what she believes, what she thinks, I only care about how she responds" - this is partly due to my belief that female expressed personality (note my choice of word here: "expressed") is very fluid and fluctuating as either Nightlight7 or Nightblue (old mASF dudes - unsure which of them said it) used to say in his forum signature "women are like the devil, the change based on what the man/men desire(s)" (paraphrasing).

The debate of "female architypes vs fluidity" was discussed to death on sedfast. The latter crew came out on top - especially in regards to infield practicability, which is all we should care about. I do however believe that female architypes, although very fallible, can be useful in relationship management.

Before you fuck her, you don't know her.

-Teevster

 

[Teevster]

Fantastic explanation. Thanks.



Should not be baffling at all. As mentioned, I asked what specifically should one be trying to study and or mirror about one’s strategy if not the tactics?(As chase mentioned they aren’t the most important) The behavior patterns? The handling logistics? The fundamentals? (However one could say these are all be tactics) Which are part of the overarching portions of a complete strategy. As there was so much unclear ideas floating I was a little baffled myself as to what points people were trying to make and some people just stopped replying to this thread completely. Which is why I asked due to all the superfluous amounts of great ideas posted. But thanks your explanation works

This last post was not necessarily dedicated to you, but more in general.

I think people should:
- Get their core fundamentals in check (they are NOT tactics - they are foundations that are not contingents - tactics are always contingent)
- Learn to master basic techniques
- Have a game/plan strategy

Not in any particular order.

And eventually expand.

People probably stopped responding due to a derailing?

-Teevster

 

[Rakehell]

I have my reservations in regards to "inner game", although I don't think this is the right place to attack inner game - this I agree with. Still, the way inner game was discussed was not relevant to subject at hand - strategy - I think it was mentioned because someone brought it up and it was off-topic, and thus it got shut down - but I could be wrong (did not re-read people's comments here).

Thats fair. The discussion up to the point of my post seemed to take an aggressive dismissal of state/fundamentals in favor for strategy.

Me being one of the most strategic people i’ve ever met, felt as though these claims are a bit misleading. Not because strategy isn’t important, but because something like state/fundamentals, is more often than not an inherent part in ones strategy going forward. They effect the effectiveness of the strategy itself.

When you strategize you do your due diligence on strengths and weaknesses, and plan for action. Otherwise you are not planning according to your reality. Think we can all agree on that.

It’s what makes the difference between two guys running the same gameplan, and one getting laid but not the other.

In that way I don’t feel as though my post was irrelevant to the subject at hand, but adding perspective on the strategy > everything else narrative.

Especially for somewhere like here where things are taken at face value and ran away with, despite the lack of perspective in who’s implementing the advice.

 

[Teevster]

Thats fair. The discussion up to the point of my post seemed to take an aggressive dismissal of state/fundamentals in favor for strategy.

This is because strategy is and has always been more important than anything state. State is like space. Strategy is the steak. Now fundamentals is also part of the "essential" just like strategy, unlike "state".

• If you have state without fundamentals and strategy you get the typical RSD monkey.
• If you have fundamentals but no strategy you end up becoming "cool guy" who don't get laid - unless lucky.
• If you have fundamentals and strategy, you become consistent.
• If you have state and strategy, you will get some results but face congruence issue, and at best you will have to compensate.

But... state usually is a good "spice" that makes things easier for you, gets you a better vibe, a good hook and all that. That said the more experience you become the less you rely on state and the less you want to be in state - it is a bit like being "high" - it affect your judgement and decision-making.

Me being one of the most strategic people i’ve ever met, felt as though these claims are a bit misleading. Not because strategy isn’t important, but because something like state/fundamentals, is more often than not an inherent part in ones strategy going forward. They effect the effectiveness of the strategy itself.

Whether you are strategic as a person or not, is irrelevant if you your strategic nature is not directed towards pick up and seduction strategies.

You can use strategy to compensate for state and even fundamentals. You can be strategic without state. So no, you are wrong. You do not need state to be strategic, quiet the opposite in many cases.

Fundamentals is more important, actually very important, but strategy always comes first - no exception. If you don't have a game plan, you are left to luck: simple as that.

When you strategize you do your due diligence on strengths and weaknesses, and plan for action. Otherwise you are not planning according to your reality. Think we can all agree on that.

I agree on that.

It’s what makes the difference between two guys running the same gameplan, and one getting laid but not the other.

Sure, again the guy with good fundamentals will do better than the man without it, all things being equal.
But this argument can be turned around: two guys with same fundamentals, one has a game plan, the other not. The one with the game plan gets laid.

Similarly, one guy has good fundamentals, the other a good game-plan. The one with a good game plan, will more likely get laid.
Again, for the sake of clarity, when referring to fundamentals, I am referring to core fundamentals - like looks, posture, tonality, style, grooming and so on - not referring to basic PU tech.

In that way I don’t feel as though my post was irrelevant to the subject at hand, but adding perspective on the strategy > everything else narrative.

Strategy is the most important aspect. This does not mean other aspects are irrelevant. Things are not simply black and white.

Especially for somewhere like here where things are taken at face value and ran away with, despite the lack of perspective in who’s implementing the advice.

Again, things are not black OR white.

-Teevster