You must be both a lover AND a provider

[Hector Papi Castillo]

BUT...he's not the first PUA to use citations and get it wrong. Even some guys who clearly got it wrong like The Mystery Method technically had scientific citations

Give me an example.

just don't trust that its right. Again...no disrespect to him. I would probably be even less qualified than he is to accurately assess research (Hopefully not for long. Taking a class on it as we speak!).

Random appeal to authority. Authorities are wrong all the time. It's about what works.

Yes, as we've discussed before EP is not the best science in the world. So I agree. It doesn't necessarily give you clear answers. And for the most part, no science does. BUT, I would choose EP over NOTHING (and like I said above, I'm just not sure how Chase applied the studies he cited. So I'm skeptical. And I don't have the time nor qualifications to go dissect it myself).

You have time to write these posts. Evasion.

I'm actually taking a Research for Psychological Professionals class in my Masters program as we speak

Then you should know whether or not someone is using research correctly. You've now contradicted yourself. Are you or are you not qualified to recognize good implementation of research? If the latter, then you probably don't even know who is qualified either. Now you're putting science on a pedestal.

One of the biggest problems with GC is that it doesn't really emphasize the main point of meeting women, dating them, and getting relationships. And that is emotionally connecting with one another. That is the bread and butter. Nothing else matters as much as this. Not having first sex with her on a first date, not being dominant, not having tight fundamentals, not getting investment, nothing.

That. Is. A. Moral. Disagreement.

I think you need to look up your definitions of morality.

This is important because weather we know it or not, connection is the reason we date. Even guys who only want sex and nothing else. See women as walking vaginas. Still...they want to connect with women (otherwise why not just buy a male sex toy. It's much less costly and easier than getting good with girls). They just usually don't know it because they're not in touch with their emotions and have a lot of emotional healing to do. Connection is what we crave as human beings. It's one of the things which gives our lives meaning. So even if we get the results without the connection, the entire experience becomes less meaningful. And if you don't buy all that, even from a practical standpoint, if we don't understand how to connect with our emotions, we won't understand the women's emotions and social context. And without understanding those two things, a lot of the advice here will be terribly terribly misapplied, creating disastrous results (as I did in my earlier days). This is the real reason I say GC doesn't fit into my framework and you disagree.

You need read the site more. You claimed to not even have read an article in one year. This is all strawman arguments and you're handing me this V on a silver platter.

GC advocates that beginners go out and set goals.
Approach 5 girls.
Ask 2 girls for their numbers.
Hook 3 girls.
etc.

This is a very very toxic mindset because it hinders success. It leaves the guy in his own head. Nervous

Yes, concrete practice is toxic. Drilling punches in boxing is toxic. Yes, good job.

Also, you're not giving me the bridge of scientific authority. You can cite your own experience, but I don't have your experience, so the only way we can have discourse is via scientific studies, VIA YOUR BENCHMARK.

Right...but as I said before...once it becomes a big system like GC, it takes YEARS to test everything.

Yeah and it takes years to create and carry out various studies in the social sciences.

There are quite a few fundamental points with which I disagree. Most importantly, the above one I mentioned about connecting with women. But here's another example just for shits and giggles:

Advocating cold approach is the main method of meeting women- Yes...it works. And it's good. Especially if you have a certain personality type. But most guys have to invest YEARS of their lives in order to get good enough at this to be successful. It's just not that efficient. Almost regardless of the result you want. Want to bang as many slootz as possible? Use online. Want to meet a girl for a relationship? Go sign up for a place where there is context for meeting her For example, if you're both volunteering at the same place, she's going to be a LOT more open to talking to you, take a lot less "skill" to get into bed, and is a lot more likely to be the type of girl you want to date (because presumably, you both like volunteering for that cause, which naturally screens for certain traits). It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of finding your niche (not a niche to COLD APPROACH a niche with SOCIAL CONTEXT), then creating a social circle from there.

Compare that with going out and approaching god knows how many women before you find one who's interested in you (assuming you're a beginner or intermediate), then god knows how many more before you find one you'd actually like to date. Not to mention...social circle reaps a variety of other benefits. Including actually having friends. And making it a lot easier to get started and see small wins (which therefore increases the chance that the guy will stick through the tough times. Cause he can see he's getting better).

Yes, GC doesn't necessarily oppose this framework. In fact, it has a few articles on how to do exactly this. But it's the main premise it teaches, and it's now what its content is geared around. If it was, I think a lot of the articles would look totally different. And like I said.... cold approach is not BAD advice. Just not optimal.

Ofc, once you become advanced and have your life together, you can somewhat easily do both cold approach and social circle. Your only hurdle if you started out as social circle is that you'll have to overcome AA and get used to the novelty of talking to strangers with no context for meeting them other than a mutual attraction to one another. But beyond that, they do eventually merge like you said.

I think this example in of itself fundamentally changes how we would approach our dating lives, and the process we use for getting better with women.

Another example is the conversation we had a while back about how we approach dates. You say we should approach it as "be a lover and it's always possible to sleep with her on a first date". I say that's a toxic mindset because people will misinterpret it to mean something totally different from what you're actually trying to say, which will thereby fuck up a lot of dates which otherwise could have gone well. But let's not open that can of worms, cause I think we've both already said our pieces on it

This all pointless talk. You're not citing studies or social science articles. This is all meaningless drivel to the debate, according to the standard by which you set for the discourse.

Again...opening a can of worms here which has already been discussed. But I disagree with a lot of the fundamentals of relationship management here. For example: https://www.girlschase.com/content/faile ... leadership

The whole idea that the man must lead in a relationship is a ridiculous outdated patriarchical idea. It's simply not true. Not saying it's unaccepatable. If that's how you want to have your relationships, and she's down for that, that's totally fine. But once you tie in the idea that "men must lead or the relationship is likely to fail"...that's when I have a problem. If you read that article...you'll note that its framed as a zero sum game. That is...it assumes that men and women have different goals in relationships. Therefore one person will usually "lose".

This is actually true a lot of the time. Oftentimes, you'll find two people in a relationship who want different things out of it. If that happens, yes, the dominant person wil usually get what they want. And the submissive one will end up heart-broken.

But the issue here is NOT "bad relationship management" on the man's end. It's simply picking the wrong partner and failing to openly and honestly communicate expectations with one another.

It's totally possible for a women to be "dominant" and for a relationship to be very fruitful for both parties. There are plenty of other things which matter more in the context of a relationship than the man remaining dominant. It's nice, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't even say its in the top 10 most important qualities.

Which brings me to a second example...it's all about being "dominant". You see this theme of dominance and leadership all across the website. And while yes, dominance, decisiveness, leadership skills etc. are all things which get women wet. They are still only but one of many many traits which matter. It's totally possible to take on the more submissive role (as long as you're not a pussy/doormat!) and be successful with women.

Okay, we're done. You're using sociological/feminist terminology, none of which is credible science, and then continue to pontificate on relationships, again, with zero studies cited.

Also, lol @ being submissive. You sent me that screenshot of the dude's girlfriend on Tinder wanting to cuck her boyf and get double-teamed. You see what happens when you're submissive. I mean, if that's your kink, that's your kink, but if you think a girl will respect you after that...well, okay.

Anyways, you failed to live up to the terms of the debate and cited zero scientific studies in social psychology from an authoritative source. I even tried to play on your terms. GG.

Good luck with your revolutionary new paradigm on relationships. There's a reason the strongest civilizations ruled the world for a long time - they were strong, dominant, and
followed sexual-dynamic traditions that work and didn't fail shit-tests set by women on a society-wide scale. Tradition isn't right because it's tradition. New and different ideas aren't right because they're new and different. What's right is right because it works. That's the entire basis behind the scientific method.

/thread

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Hector,

I'm sorry but it doesn't look like you took most of what I wrote seriously. I was trying to have a genuine discussion which is why I went out of my way to hash everything out in detail.. You're attempting to win an argument. The way you framed your answers makes it clear that you didn't actually attempt to understand what I've written. And you didn't attempt to understand what I've been trying to say this whole time. I mean...I can do what you did too. It's really easy. Watch:

You have time to write these posts. Evasion.

Logical Fallacy. Analyzing the credibility of research is not the same as taking 10-20 mins to write a post. You're saying if A then B and C. Because C and B are the same. But in reality, C and B are actually different. Also, I've written like, 3 posts total in the past 6 months. Only reason I was writing back here is because of the respect I have for you and your ideas. Normally, I would not devote this kind of time and effort to writing on a forum.

Then you should know whether or not someone is using research correctly. You've now contradicted yourself. Are you or are you not qualified to recognize good implementation of research? If the latter, then you probably don't even know who is qualified either. Now you're putting science on a pedestal.

I already admitted that I'm not qualified. I know for sure Chase is not cause he has no training (still no disrespect to him).

That. Is. A. Moral. Disagreement.

I think you need to look up your definitions of morality.

Nope. You're misunderstanding my argument. It's hard to even respond to what you're saying cause it looks like you didn't even read what I wrote.

Random appeal to authority. Authorities are wrong all the time. It's about what works.

Already explained why that's not the case. You're taking my arguments out of context.



I could keep going...but then you wrote this:

Okay, we're done. You're using sociological/feminist terminology, none of which is credible science, and then continue to pontificate on relationships, again, with zero studies cited.

Also, lol @ being submissive. You sent me that screenshot of the dude's girlfriend on Tinder wanting to cuck her boyf and get double-teamed. You see what happens when you're submissive. I mean, if that's your kink, that's your kink, but if you think a girl will respect you after that...well, okay.

Anyways, you failed to live up to the terms of the debate and cited zero scientific studies in social psychology from an authoritative source. I even tried to play on your terms. GG.

Good luck with your revolutionary new paradigm on relationships. There's a reason the strongest civilizations ruled the world for a long time - they were strong, dominant, and
followed sexual-dynamic traditions that work and didn't fail shit-tests set by women on a society-wide scale. Tradition isn't right because it's tradition. New and different ideas aren't right because they're new and different. What's right is right because it works. That's the entire basis behind the scientific method.

Now it just sounds like you're attacking me. And you' still have 0 understanding of what I was saying the whole time. Not because you can't understand. You just failed to even try. You didn't even understand the terms by which I was suggesting we debate. Or maybe you did, but you just wanted to win. Cause you have to defend your precious ego. So you wrote a bunch of bs which positions you to most others reading as the "winner".

It's clear that your goal here is to make me look bad. Not to discuss and build upon ideas. It's sad to see this from a fellow Philosopher and someone who I considered to some degree a friend and mentor. Not to mention a writer for the main site lol.

I'm disappointed. You're better than this.

P.S.

If you really didn't want to make this public, you could have sent me a PM saying you thought what I said is disrespectful. I would have made a point to avoid coming off that way. Instead, you took it personally and made it into this big mess.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Also, a provider is NOT genetically unfit. You're getting lost in sub-par evo-psych terms. Later in the paragraph, you get more specific by saying "lover qualities" and "provider qualities," which correctly implies that a singular human male can have some of each qualities, all at the same time.

Do you mean literally not genetically unfit, or metaphorically not genetically unfit? Eg if a skinny or fat guy has a full time job, would that be geneitcally unfit in the literal context? In the metaphorical context would it mean he has a full time job and is caring of her and would look after offspring, regardless of if he is skinny/average/fat and therefore is seen as genetically fit? Did you mean it the literal or the metaphorical way?

Is geneticaly unfit seen as a negative thing when trying to get women, in the context you mean above?

Rain, sorry I missed this.

I mean metaphorically. You can provide for a girl and still be a lover. If you want good relationships with super-high quality girls, you need to be both, unless you're way above her SMV. Genetics are helpful, but we're talking about behaviors here (e.g., providers give good emotions, lots of time, etc; lovers are fast, aggressive, and give sex/good-conversation, and sometimes not even good conversation).

He can be genetically ungifted but if he shows dominance, aggression, etc, she can't tell the difference. Her radar only sees your actions. Yes, physical attributes help, but in the end, it's actions that win.

Now to Bboy,

I'm sorry but it doesn't look like you took most of what I wrote seriously.

Of course I didn't. You set the standard for scientific literature and experience being the benchmark for discourse here. Your experience and my experience cannot be transmitted to one another, as per your criticisms about not knowing Chase's personal life and that being a barrier to you knowing if he's truly good or not.

Experience and scientific literature were your two criterion for legitimate advice. Since the former is eliminated, as per the above explanation, only scientific literature is left, per your criterion.

Instead of living up to the standards you set, you went on some huge rants without any scientific literature to back you up. You failed to meet your own criteria. You're talking to yourself at that point.

Everything was moot after you failed to live up to the criterion of the debate.

If you really didn't want to make this public, you could have sent me a PM saying you thought what I said is disrespectful. I would have made a point to avoid coming off that way. Instead, you took it personally and made it into this big mess.

Nope, you're posting publicly and indirectly criticizing Girls Chase. I thoroughly debunked all of your claims, especially since you don't even know what we teach here, as per your admission. Calling you out in public was the correct thing to do. You claimed to only abide by scientific literature and personal experience. The latter is inadmissible, since I don't know you or your life beyond a few PM's we've had, thus only scientific literature is credible, per your standards. I keep pointing this out over and over and over and over again, and you keep evading it. If you can't defend your claims, don't post them. The burden of proof was upon you.

Study some more.

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Nope, you're posting publicly and indirectly criticizing Girls Chase.

Hector, based on the angry tone of your messages, I feel like this is what it's really about. And there's no way you'll fail in "discrediting" me (and yes, I know that's what you're trying to do. You said so yourself in the paragraph the above quote is from. Just looks like you've edited it out. You can deny it if you want and I'll look silly. Because people will believe you, not me. But you're an honest guy. So I hope you'll admit it).Not here. This is your kingdom. If you haven't already done it, you will. I have no chance. Especially since I don't post that often anymore, so people around here don't really know me. You don't have to be objectively right. You just have to phrase your replies exactly like you've been doing. Especially since the stuff I'm discussing requires a lot of clarifying, because its easy to misinterpret. You're not allowing me to do that.

Anyways given that this is the dynamic of our interaction, continuing to argue and explain myself about why I think you're wrong is pointless.

Having said that, it also leaves me a little bit confused. Let's take a step back:

At the start, you said this:

I anticipated this. However, you can see how it comes off very socially strange that you would no longer trust PUA/pickup, and yet you are using the forum of a pickup site as your house of discussion and have learned a lot from Girls Chase. That's fine that you're on your own now, that's the goal of any teacher to help you become self-sufficient, but it doesn't look good to sow dissent in the home that taught you (the concepts at GC led you to where you are, whether you want to admit it or not). I'm not saying you need to be some zealot of GC, no, that's a bad thing, but when you're openly claiming that GC is not trustworthy, you're getting into some shitty territory.

So I clarified my intententions. I made it clear that I did not mean to come off like I'm criticizing Chase, or GC. I told you I would make an effort to phrase my posts such that it doesn't come off this way. Alternatively, I even volunteered to quit posting altogether if you thought it was necessary. Your response was this:

That's not at all what I said. I'm testing you. You're putting out big boi ideas and I'm giving you big boi treatment. You said you know how to box, so I'm putting you in the ring without headgear and we're going 5 rounds. If you don't like it, don't try to say big boi stuff. I'm getting defensive and aggressive, because you are smart and you do have influence and I'm testing to see if you're simply trying to make your own brand and show you if it's good or not OR I'm seeing if you are simply expressing your new ideas in a less-than-optimal fashion (i.e., you're coming off like you know better and are, whether you mean to or not, throwing GC/pickup under the table).

So naturally, I thought we were having a discussion. Putting my ideas to the test. With the goal of figuring out clarity and truth.

But now, you're telling me this:

Nope, you're posting publicly and indirectly criticizing Girls Chase. I thoroughly debunked all of your claims, especially since you don't even know what we teach here, as per your admission. Calling you out in public was the correct thing to do.

Again...this is the paragraph where you said the goal was to discredit me. It's been edited out now.

So which is it Hector? Do you want to put my ideas to the test? Or do you want to discredit me? If you really want to put my ideas to the test, allow me to explain and elaborate. Sure, criticize what I say if you think I'm wrong. But also engage with what I'm saying. Actually think about what I say and write your response in a way such that I can explain myself. Don't just write responses meant to shut me down completely.

If you are trying to discredit me, I'm struggling to understand why. I admitted that I made a genuine mistake. I understand how the phrasing of my posts comes off as undermining Chase, and I'm more than happy to fix that.

So why is all this necessary? Is there something else I haven't realized?

I'm not asking to put you on the spot or critize you anymore. I genuinely want to know what's going on.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Aww, now you're trying to make me look like a bully. Sure, I'm a bully. You got me. Yes I put "I'm trying to discredit you," and deleted it because I thought it a bit too far, but yes I did write it. Now what? Now what's your argument, pookie bear? If you fail my test, I discredit you, as was my intention (because your arguments are trash), but I wanted you to expose it for everyone else to see clearly you can't live up to the standards of the argument.

You're arguing like a woman now. You fixated on one mean word I said and are blowing it up now like making me a bully somehow works at all. You're in a fucking arena of men, dude. But, I mean, you're against being dominant in relationships right? That damn patriarchy! You're adopting the traits of those you submit to very well, cutie pie.

Defend the points I brought up or go back to the drawing board. Your insistence on evading my arguments is astoundingly hilarious. But you're doing it because the moment you have to live up to your standards of argument, you lose.

Just kidding, you already lost about two posts ago. Now I'm just having fun.

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Defend the points I brought up or go back to the drawing board. Your insistence on evading my arguments is astoundingly hilarious.

Just kidding, you already lost about two posts ago. Now I'm just having fun.

No dude...I'm not avoiding anything. I'd be happy to defend my arguments. But this needs to be resolved first. It takes priority. Because nothing I say to defend my ideas will have any merit if you're not willing to hear me and engage with me. So what's the point? If we don't address this, any further discussion will do nothing but create drama and flame wars. At best you'll just keep dismissing what I'm saying by taking it out of context and/or before I've elaborated on them, thereby subtly making me look stupid. But we will definitely discover no truth nor great new insights here.

Plus, other than this childish outburst, you've been a really cool guy for as long as I've known you. So us being on good terms means more to me than a stupid argument about how to get girls.

That's why I ask you again...what's going on? Why are you lashing out at me?

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

I'd be happy to defend my arguments

Then do it. Post scientific studies to support any of your claims and show how they're contrary to what we teach here (by citing articles from Girls Chase).

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Like I said, I feel like there's no point under these circumstances. Nothing productive will come of it. Well...I guess you'll get your big "W". Cause like I said, its very easy to twist this stuff around and make it look wrong. Especially if the audience is already rooting for you. Plus, "winning" is not my goal here anyways. Hell, even your last response was taking something I said out of context. I said I'd be happy to defend my arguments if we resolve this conflict. You quoted only "I'd be happy to defend my arguments" and nothing else. It's amazing how good you are at this lol

Look man, I'd like to keep you on my team. If you ever wanna tell me what's going on, feel free to post here, send me a PM, even insta me. Whatever. I don't mean this in a condescending way. I'm being genuine here.

If not, I'm sorry it came to this. I still wish you the best of luck.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

I feel like there's no point under these circumstances. Nothing productive will come of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdEQmpVIE4A

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Chase and Franco,

I know I'm not your favorite person right now. The one constructive thing Hector did do is point out that I've been unintentionally disrespectful to you. Like I said, I apologize for that and if you still want me around, I will do my best to amend it.

Having said that, I feel like Hector's behavior has become very inappropriate. He has continued to mock, insult, and use logical fallacies with the sole purpose of making me look bad. I've made multiple attempts to extend a hand of compassion, understand where he's coming from and resolve our differences. His response was continued mockery, misquotes, insults and a youtube clip. It's one thing for two normal members of the boards to be in a flame war. It's quite another for Hector to be involved in a flame war. Both of these things are not good, but can be justified.

But for Hector to be flaming me when I'm showing him as much respect as possible given the circumstances. I think that's unacceptable. I've seen him do this to others on these boards many times. It has and will continue to reflect on this community very poorly. Much more than any undermining I may have accidently been a part of. Hell just his behavior on this thread probably did more damage than I ever did. Most people on these boards are consumers or potential consumers of your products. So when they see someone on your staff going off on another member...it really doesn't look good. People will form opinions based off this. He's a leader here. He more than anyone needs to be setting an example. Especially since the purpose of these boards is to teach people how to be great men. It would be one thing if he stood up for you and for himself and defended his beliefs. But it's a whole different ball game when he's just being outright aggressive due to anger and/or some other reason which he hasn't explained. He even admitted, by his own account that he's being a bully here. That's not what decent guys do. That's childishness.

He could have chosen to not respond at any time. He could have chosen to let me know why he feels the way he does about me so we can resolve our differences. He even could have chosen to tell me that what I've done is unacceptable and he doesn't want to discuss this with me anymore. All of those would have been constructive (or at the very least, not DEstructive). He did none of those things.

I don't know what you should do with this information, but I feel like it needed to be pointed out. Especially since this is behavior I've seen from him many a time. This is not an isolated incident. Also, I apologize in advance for creating so much drama.



P.S.

I was considering writing this in the form of a PM to Franco in order to avoid creating more drama, but I figured Hector should be able to see this and defend himself should he so choose. I don't like talking about people behind their backs.

 

[Marcellus]

Bboy,

I'm pretty sure the reason hectors keeps doing these things every time you try to extend an olive branch is because in doing so you evade answering his attack.

All I can see is this

Hector: So this is why I think your arguments are trash and I want you to provide some scientific research into why they are not
Bboy: Dude are you mad at me? Please Don't be mad at me
Hector: Just provide some scientific research and evidence into what you've been saying all along
Bboy: I'm not going to do that until you tell me why you're mad at me? This is a stupid reason to be mad at me
Hector: Still evading
Bboy: Who cares about that, just don't be mad at me I don't want to lose you as a friend alright!

I get that you're trying to be the bigger man Bboy and I admire that but..... YOU MADE SOME GRAND CLAIMS and you ultimately failed to provide evidence. Explain why you think the way you do and so highly of scientific studies and research, then we can scold hector.

I also get where Hector's coming from, you can't just let people say dumb shit and get away with it( not meant as an Insult).

-M

 

[Bboy100]

I'm pretty sure the reason hectors keeps doing these things every time you try to extend an olive branch is because in doing so you evade answering his attack.

All I can see is this

Hector: So this is why I think your arguments are trash and I want you to provide some scientific research into why they are not
Bboy: Dude are you mad at me? Please Don't be mad at me
Hector: Just provide some scientific research and evidence into what you've been saying all along
Bboy: I'm not going to do that until you tell me why you're mad at me? This is a stupid reason to be mad at me
Hector: Still evading
Bboy: Who cares about that, just don't be mad at me I don't want to lose you as a friend alright!

Naw man, that's not what I'm doing. I never would have engaged in this discussion in the first place if I knew it was a fight. In other words, I never would have replied to his initial challenge and made those "grand claims" in the first place. Because I can't win a fight with Hector if it takes place on the GirlsChase forums (also, I have no interest in participating in one). This is his area. His followers. his House.The only way my ideas will get a fair shot (regardless of weather or not they're right or wrong) is if Hector allows me to explain them and fairly analyzes them instead of taking cheap shots with the sole intention of shutting me down. And that's not going to happen if he's pissed off af at me. That's the reason why I refused to continue until we addressed his anger. Reread the thread. You'll see that that's what I was doing

also get where Hector's coming from, you can't just let people say dumb shit and get away with it( not meant as an Insult).

Absolutely man. That's the only reason I even engaged Hector in the first place. I honestly didn't even want to have this discussion. There are other things I'd like to be doing with my time. Writing these posts takes a long ass time. Locating the research to back up what I'm saying would take even longer. But you're right. I have said quite a few things now which go against the grain of what's taught here. So I wanted him to test me. If it really is "dumb shit", I wanted to be exposed for it. Because I should be held accountable. If we found that I was genuinely wrong, I was ready to eat my words. But his trial needs to be fair. If it's not, I refuse to participate in it.

I also want to note that putting the burden of proof on me doesn't make sense. Hector is the one who writes dating advice for a living and asks people to spend their hard earned cash on it. As such, he needs to be held to a higher standard. I'm just a dude with an opinion writing in a forum. Anyone who disagrees with me can just choose to ignore me without risking losing any time, emotional investment or money. Yes, this does create a rather unfair dichotomy. I'm basically allowed to say whatever I want, and I don't really have to do anything to back it up. Whereas those who write dating advice need a solid base of correctly interpreted research in order to live up to my standard. Which is why I was ready to produce SOME evidence (if Hector had shown that he was willing to look at it fairly). Not as much as I would require if I was actually selling something. But enough to show that my information does come from somewhere, and that I'm not just talking out of my ass. I think that's a fair compromise.

What ISN'T fair is for Hector to ask me to write a whole thesis to back up what I've said in a few posts on a forum. That's ridiculous.
Yes, I will disagree with some people and ask that they provide evidence if what they're saying doesn't match up with my reality like I did with Big Daddy. But I'm not gonna DEMAND that they prove their right, lest I try to publically invalidate everything they've ever said.

Explain why you think the way you do and so highly of scientific studies and research, then we can scold hector.

I disagree. The fact that Hector disagrees with what I'm saying doesn't give him the license to be aggressive. Challenge me? Sure. Let me know that I was disrespecting Chase? I appreciated it. Try to "discredit" me? Gray area, but I can understand. Blatently disrespect me and throw a temper tantrum like a child? Absolutly not.

Anyways...I appreciate your post Marcellus, but this discussion has exhausted me. I don't have the energy to continue. If Chase or Franco want to chime in, great. If not, I think I'm done with this thread for now.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Bruh...

Look, I've explained to you why I was being hard on you. I explained it many times, but I'll say it again - I was testing you, but I kinda already knew it was all bullshit, because this isn't some learning session where you can maybe teach me something, so I was extra motivated. You see me being angry as in "I'm mad at you Bboy!" That's not how I work. Getting angry and debating people is *FUN* for me. That's my personality. Am I bit untactful or brash? Sure, we all know that. Anyone who has read any of my writing knows I'm that way. If you can't handle it or don't want to handle it, ignore me. It's that easy.

However, now you're trying to concern troll. The reason I didn't take any of your olive branches seriously is because, as Marcellus pointed out, you're evading my arguments.

All I can see is this

Hector: So this is why I think your arguments are trash and I want you to provide some scientific research into why they are not
Bboy: Dude are you mad at me? Please Don't be mad at me
Hector: Just provide some scientific research and evidence into what you've been saying all along
Bboy: I'm not going to do that until you tell me why you're mad at me? This is a stupid reason to be mad at me
Hector: Still evading
Bboy: Who cares about that, just don't be mad at me I don't want to lose you as a friend alright!

Also, I would add on something else to this. I see your olive branches as a way to evade my argument. From my perspective, you're playing the victim card, which makes you morally superior, and makes me look like a bully. It's not a tactic of conflict resolution for the sake of understanding, it's a power tactic, like all victim-card plays are. If you make the other guy (me) look like a bully, it convinces people to auto-reject my arguments. Also, if you DO convince me to calm down or be nice, then you get power back, too. It makes me play by your frame of "let's be nice." Then, at that point, you're going to continue to evade or just stop responding after you get your little W of "I got the big mean guy to stop being mean to me!" I've seen it before. That's why when I found a chunk of skin (that you still won't post any scientific literature defending your claims), I didn't let go. It would have been stupid of me to stop the debate and "address my anger issues." I continued until I won, because we were both playing to win.

You want to know why it's apparently obvious it's all a power move and that you were playing to win, but too cowardly to admit it? When I deleted the "I'm trying to discredit you" line I wrote, you brought it back up and called me out on it. Me deleting that was *OBVIOUSLY* an example of me trying not to go too far (in fact there are a LOT of comments like these that I wrote in my posts but deleted because they were too mean). However, you took it upon yourself to bring it back up. If you were really concerned about me calming down, you would have thought, "Ok, I see that he deleted that; he's at least trying a little not to be a dick," and then continued the debate.

Instead, you fixated on that one point and made it the crux of your entire next post. You tried to paint me as a bully and win the moral highground. That's fine. It's a tactic that works if the other guy isn't willing to put on the Bad Guy Mask. Unfortunately for you, I am.

This all happened in very clear steps. Your insistence on evading my arguments, despite your original ones being disrespectful of the house you're in (and on top of that, patently wrong), only emboldened me. Anyone reading this thread can see that. I started off a bit tacked but not super mean. Then you started to jab back and I think, "okay, he wants to play, let's go." In fact, I flat out told you, "Look, we're gonna go big boi time now. You ready?" This involves sometimes being a bit mean and silly. That's how rhetoric works. Only the most autistic person will think it's all about logic. That's not how this works - we're not robots. The trick is to ad hominem your opponent enough to knock them off balance but not so much that the insults are your ONLY arguments. They should be side-cannons. This world is about influence, not logic. Power positions in our civilization are constructed of logic, sure (policies, the Three Branches of Government, etc), but men win influence and get to those seats of power and pass their resolutions through RHETORIC. If you haven't yet grasped this, you're lost in philosophy 101 and haven't paid attention to the greatest philosophers in history. They insulted the FUCK out of everyone. That's how humans work. We express emotion.

So if someone wants to come in here and say, "Oh, look at Hector, he's such a bully!" that's fine. You persuaded them with your victim-card play. But anyone with simple observation skills and a set of balls is going to see how this went down. Also, if anyone doubts my sincerity or compassion, they don't see any of my other posts. I've spent countless hours helping people on this forum and I'm nice as fuck when someone isn't debating me or indirectly/directly criticizing GC. I see that you did indeed attempt to apologize for the latter, so maybe I was consumed by debate passion that I was still in "kill" mode, but most of me felt that it was...disingenuous. That was my intuition.

Now, to a few of your points.

I also want to note that putting the burden of proof on me doesn't make sense. Hector is the one who writes dating advice for a living and asks people to spend their hard earned cash on it.

What the fuck kind of argument is this. You're really learning some interesting ways to divert pressure, I'll give you that. The burden of proof is upon you because you're disagreeing with the status quo (even if, as I've pointed out again, and again, and again, you're really not disagreeing with GC, you're agreeing with it, you just don't know you are because you barely read GC).

What ISN'T fair is for Hector to ask me to write a whole thesis to back up what I've said in a few posts on a forum. That's ridiculous.

Stop whining. You could have picked literally one thing to focus on, used some social psychology articles to back them up, and we could have went on that one thing. Might have taken 30 mins to an hour at most. If you weren't so gung-ho about how social psychology is so superior to PUA, I wouldn't have set such a strict standard, but you were, so I did.

What you don't understand is that all of your arguments were vague as fuck. You started throwing out terms like "patriarchy" and how "you don't need to be dominant in a relationship" - how the fuck are we going to have a "this is right" and "this isn't right" discussion if your entire criteria is either experience-based or science based?! The former is out of the question, for reasons I've now had to explain three or four times. Only science is left.

If I had simply started saying, "no, bboy, that's dumb as fuck, and here's why," you would have retreated to your criterion of science and said something like, "Well, you know, I don't think the science confirms that," or something like, "I mean, that's one way to run a relationship but it's not the only way and not the best way." I've been doing this a long time, man. Your entire argument is like a blueprint in front of me on a table and I see almost every way you would have gone. There's only so many logic paths at a certain point and my intuition was telling me you were only going to evade, evade, evade. At no point were you going to stand up to the criterion you set...

Which is why I made it such a big deal. In response, you decided to make morality your main play and throw out the victim card. The victim card only wins if the crowd agrees with you and kills the guy for you, because you're being bullied and can't handle him, or if you convince the bully he's a meanie and his conscience stops him. Unfortunately for some, when I see the victim card thrown, I turn off my sympathy and go sociopath mode. It's something I had to learn how to do, but it's proven a useful tool.

I, on the other hand, chose a difficult route. I was prepared to go the distance with scientific references and spend hours sifting through abstracts and papers. As long as both continue to fight, the most savage method wins.

Why was I being so savage you ask? Because I enjoy this shit. And, because I'm defending the home I live at. Letting people get away with small disagreements and jabs eventually emboldens the enemy. I believe in decorum and courtesy, sure, but when dissent is sown in a house, it must be stomped out. The dissenters, of course, appeal to some moral highground of "Why can't we have our own opinion?!" or even get snarky with, "You're just afraid you're wrong and are trying to prove you're right!" Both of which are silly excuses. If we're in this house and you want to disagree with Girls Chase, that's fine, you're a free man, but when talking about how PUA is mostly bullshit in almost every recent post you have (or at least every recent one I've seen), I see a pattern and feel obligated to stomp it out.

You're afraid that it's an unfair advantage I have being in the position of authority I am? Of course it is. That's why it's called Underdog Odds. It's harder to win but you get more if you do. If you're going to try and kill a dragon, don't fucking miss. If you were interested in learning from the dragon (GC) and testing your theories against the dragon's theories, you would have gone about your discourse in a very different way. Your attitude was evident in your rhetoric. The way you set up your paragraphs was very clearly, "I'm digging into some magic sauce that knows better than GC." Instead, if you'd wanted to be civil, I would have suggested an approach of, "Look, I have these ideas. Are these similar to GC or different?" Or, you know, you could do the research and find that your ideas aren't different from GC, which they really aren't, as evidenced by me pointing out that Chase has already covered the menstruation comment you made (women ovulating like dominant men; women menstruating like soft men) and also that Chase advocates being a provider and a lover (though we don't agree with the "it's okay to be submissive in a relationship"; that one is just gonna get you cucked).

But you didn't. You kinda shyly poked at the dragon to see if your theories might be counters.

Maybe it wasn't intentional, but it doesn't much matter. You apologized and I see that, and if it's genuine, then maybe I was a bit of a dick, but hey, that's how I am. Though I still found it all really disingenuous, and being a professional observer of people, I'm going to trust my gut. Isn't that what you advocate, too? Personal experience over errythang?

What I find super interesting is that you doubled-down on the victim play and called for help to Chase to get me reprimanded or to make me look like a bad teacher. That was some next level cuckery if I ever saw it. You say you saw me acting like a bully on many occasion and apparently disapprove of it. If you thought I was being so mean, why didn't you PM me or call me out in the forum? You can see how now your concern seems...disingenuous. I mean, when I saw you posting your anti-PUA stuff, I constantly told you how you were wrong. If on the other hand, you're trying to play ball and fuck with me back after I've been such a dick, cool, but at least fuck with me in a way that matters - attack my knowledge or my skills as a coach.

Because if my behavior was so harmful to people, why would they sign up for coaching with me? Why would they read my articles? Why would people go to me for advice? My guess is that most people really don't give a fuck that I'm sometimes mean. I didn't complain when my UFC coach used to bully me and beat up on me. Because that's his personality. He's a jokester. And that's sometimes what you have to endure when you learn from someone - you accept their full personality. If you don't like it, don't engage them or don't learn from them. There are plenty of other coaches or teachers on GC guys can go to. If a guy reads my comments and is so scared and intimidated by me being mean, then I think I already know why they're not doing too well with women. First free lesson.

SHIT, I think the reason I help so many people is BECAUSE I'm the way I am. This isn't some chest-beating moment. I INTENTIONALLY AM THIS WAY. I choose on a daily basis to the be the way I am, without shame. I made this decision around 17 years old to be "that guy." And consistently, I see it inspire people. I see it energize men, because it evokes a primal response from them that they have lost touch with. What I've been trying to point out to you is that we are men here. WE FIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. This is the modern equivalent of the Spartan agōgē, where children are taught war and combat in the most brutal way possible. Since we don't have mandatory service (at least in the U.S.), we need another type of savagery. Although it's a bit strange when diluted into intellectual form on an electronic format, this is our agōgē. You go out, do war with your fellow man to vie for pussy, the ultimate resource, then you come back, post about it, and we either help each other with an idea, or we debate about it. Those debates are not always going to be civil and nice. I'm a bit harsh. You should know that about me and if you didn't want to engage me, you could have stopped responding at any time, but, you didn't. You stepped in the ring and you danced around for 5 rounds, despite telling me you only like to throw haymakers (using scientific literature as your criterion for truth). I waited and waited for you to throw them, but you didn't. So I threw a few jabs to get some points, and maybe a cheeky kidney shot here and there, then the final bell rung and you started yelling to everyone that I played mean.

This is a business, yes, and there is some decorum and respect necessary. When and if I step out of line, I don't doubt for a minute that Chase will reprimand me. But we are also a community of men who don't pull punches and train each other hard and I trust that so long as Chase continues to employ me and support my unorthodox style of teaching, he is supporting me (there have been a few times where Chase has had to set me straight, for full disclosure).

We're not RoK or the Red Pill where we beat each other up because none of us are getting laid and we hate life, but we're still hard men here. Think of me as a drill instructor. I'm yelling and being mean, but it's for your benefit, whether you realize it or not. If you fail the test and it's not for your benefit, good, it's for someone else's benefit, because they see what breaks a man.

I talk shit, ya. I punch hard, ya. But I care about this community. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend time here. Admittedly, I've been a bit absent lately, but that's because I'm working on products and projects, all for GC, yes for myself to make a living, but also to help others. As you can see, I have twice as many posts as you. I'm much more active than you. so when you try and call into question my desire to help this community and that my toxic behavior is somehow disrupting it, which insinuates that I don't actively monitor my own behavior and realize *exactly* what I'm doing - do me a favor and eat a fucking dick, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I also find it all very funny that if we'd simply had our debate, you would have seen that many of your points I agree with and that the scientific literature does agree with GC, but we never got there, because you weren't prepared to run my gauntlet. What are some of these points I agree with

- High value women don't hookup much, engage in polyamory (unless the guy is top 1% of top 1% value and she openly accepts him sleeping around), or go for pure lovers
- You need to have lover and provider traits to have relationships
- If you only want hookups, go pure lover
- If you want high quality women, even to hookup, you need at some some provider traits, because they have so much choice of hot guys that they don't need to give up pussy in exchange for a great quality dick

I pretty much agreed with 85% of your post and wanted to show you that, but telling you that what you are saying is revolutionary IS ALREADY GC MATERIAL, was not a viable strategy for getting it through to your head how awesome GC is. How do I know that? Because I've tried it. I've posted on your threads multiple times telling you that there is no substantive distinction between your new, revolutionary insights and what is derivable from the GC framework.

So, I switched to an alternative strategy - get you into a fight and make you see that even with all of your might fighting against it, the conclusion that GC and your framework are nearly identical could not be denied, especially because we'd have scientific literature backing it up. I do this for a living, bro. I spend everyday teaching people how to learn and myself constructing new ways to educate.

It's a shame we never got to that glorious epiphany where I convert you to the light of the Empire, but oh well. Not everyone can pass the test. I probably should have shaved off a few more insults and been less mean. I do need to become more tactful if I want to teach more people. Lesson learned.

Hector

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

For those messaging me, thank you for your feedback, both the critical and the supportive. Feel free to give me some responses on how you feel about my behavior on the forums. I'm not afraid of criticism (or praise ) and Bboy wasn't completely off in his criticisms (but you can see why I had to press my point and ignore it until the last post). I admit that I can sometimes be crass and a bit of a bully. It's pedagogical in spirit (and I also like things rough in many aspects of my life, including sex), but I concede that I sometimes get carried away or improperly convey my intentions (as evidenced by my most recent article that some people mistook as veiled misogyny). If you have some feedback, feel free to PM me. In the end, I'm here for you and this was a good lesson that reminded me of that. So for that, I do thank Bboy. He's quite good with girls from what he's shown and is developing higher level paradigms with a unique, personal twist. I went through this phase a few times and thought, "Hmm, am I developing my own thing?" Then, I talked to Chase and as you can guess, he was already twelve steps ahead of me and showed me how this curve on the journey wasn't a detraction from the process of getting girls that we lay out here at Girls Chase, but an evolution of it that is not often talked about, because it's higher level stuff (and it's hard to write about clearly without a concrete example; most guys just don't get it).

For instance, I don't doubt that when he says he's not gung-ho about being dominant in a relationship, he's actually still being dominant, but is seeing it, from his personal lens, as something not quite submission and not quite dominance. A Yin-Yang balance. I know exactly what he's talking about and it's not wrong, but it's not completely right, either. It's very simply an acknowledgement that you need to do more than blatantly roll over a woman in a relationship, since while that does give you respect, it fails to give her security and it can come off as territorial and slightly insecure...kind of. All of it, however, is derivable from what we teach here. We have no rigid system, really. We've perfected the art of teaching seduction. I assure you this. There's nothing else on the planet quite like it.

Hector

 

[mindful]

i just wanted to chyme in and say hindsight is always 20/20.

It’s easy to neglect the little things that were once hard concepts as you progress with girls and get better and then get to a point where you don’t think about what you are doing so much and just are now good with women. And with this, maybe somethings about girls chase have been proven wrong in your experience or you get results that aren’t what the articles say. For example - maybe it takes you 2-3 dates to get a girl to bed with you, or longer. Or you text a girl more than you should but it still doesn’t hurt you with getting with a girl. There are countless other examples where maybe things work out in your favor and its not so black and white. I agree that sometimes I too take the articles on this site a little too black and white instead of accounting for the gray area. But it doesn’t mean what’s taught here is wrong by any means.

However, as Bboy stated, his main objective is to emotionally connect with women not just fuck them or get with them as soon as possible. With that said, there was a time where yeah, he was doing these things and trying to get with girls and move fast - and it seemed to work out pretty well for him (also lots of failures), based on reading his posts and stuff. But now that he does have a handle on women, from what he has stated in previous posts, he can now focus on what he deems as emotionally connecting with women, but I assure you that other things that are preached on this site (deep diving, being a sexy man, fundamentals, etc he has down pretty good. So now it SEEMS that it is just about the “emotional” connection when in fact, a lot of his success with women is a culmination of past failures and doing what is taught on this site.

I think Chase has mentioned in some posts as well that the articles are more like guidelines and not a do all be all.

 

[Chase]

Couple things I see here. A few issues on either side.


BBOY

On one side we have Bboy. Who appreciates some of this site and is skeptical of other parts of it... totally fine. However, Bboy also has a history of taking Girls Chase material out of context, as well as zeroing in on some aspects, ignoring others, independently rediscovering aspects he ignored, then claiming to have learned about them elsewhere and that we don't cover them (or don't cover them enough). This will tend to raise a lot of hackles no matter what you talk about.

There's also the "I can't trust anyone whose results I haven't witnessed firsthand" position. Which at first sounds quite convincing. Two men rarely agree on which girl is the hottest in a lineup of hot girls. And they can have very different understandings of what a 'good relationship' looks like. Therefore, how can you know something that works for someone else will work for you?

This is classic critical theory. Everything can be criticized, so nothing is real. Go test it? Too hard, takes too long to test everything. Look at all the other guys claiming success from these methods? Who knows what kind of success those guys actually have - I don't know any of those guys either. Nothing is real but direct personal experience. This stuff is taught in American universities and comes from the Frankfurt School. It's complete bunk; total garbage. It's been used to deconstruct Western civilization by making everyone doubt everything learned over the course of millennia, and replace it with a bunch of postmodernist gibber gabber. It works because it feels so perceptive; you can deconstruct anything! Nothing is real! That's total intellectual freedom! But it's not - it's intellectual paucity (I'm not criticizing you, Bboy; just the Frankfurt School intellectualizing you're doing here).

We use anecdotes where we have to to get guys excited. But the only thing we want them to do is go out and test things to see what works for them. Different angles work for different men. However, they're all undergirded by the same set of core principles.

Peer review works by publishing results plus the methodology followed to arrive at those results. Others are then free to replicate those studies. Even among peer review, there is endless bickering about biased studies, improper controls, results that aren't able to be replicated, and so on. One academic friend of mine who left academia put it like this: you win in academia by publishing a lot and stabbing as many other published academics in the back as possible. Anyway, that's beside the point. Unfortunately, you can't do controlled studies on becoming a millionaire or seducing beautiful women (there are ethical rules against this as well as major practical impediments). So you can either do the Frankfurt School "well everything is totally unknowable and nothing means anything" stuff. Or you can say "Let me find a teacher whose stuff gels with me and then test that to see if I can get it to work." Might be me or Alek or Hector or someone else from GC. Or it might be an RSD guy or Tucker Max or David Tian or whoever. Or maybe none of us works for you but you have a really good natural buddy and you learn from him. Or you go full on Dr. Phil "just be yourself." Doesn't really matter what in particular you choose, so long as you are happy with the method and it gets you the results you're after. If it doesn't, well:

What to Do When Your Approach Just Isn't Working


HECTOR

Hector makes a lot of very good arguments here, but he also gets quite aggressive and does veer into bullying territory. That is aggravated because he's more than just a senior forum member; he's also a coach and paid contributor to the site. I talked with him (as he mentioned above) about staying calmer and make more measured addresses to people you disagree with.

I'm glad Hector addressed the content in this thread he did; however, I'd appreciate it if he did so in a more even keeled way. I think he'll look to be a little calmer in how he addresses guys now (still as much intellectual punch, just a little bit less sass, right Hector?).


BBOY, ONE PARTING NOTE

I know you're doing the Frankfurt School thing and it feels exciting to break down aspects of Girls Chase you do not agree with. Maybe it feels like you are doing a service to your fellow man.

But if you're going to participate here, you can't have this simmering low-lying criticism running through everything. It undermines the site the same way simmering low-lying criticism undermines societies, social groups, or any other organization it occurs in.

You are welcome to start posts to address concerns you have or beliefs you have. "Girls Chase does not talk about X and I think it should." Or "Girls Chase does not use enough peer review for my tastes." Or "Girls Chase uses a lot of anecdote (discussion on anecdote as a learning tool)." Those could be good, interesting threads and lead to interesting debates. But when it's snuck into posts about something else (like lover + provider... something we've discussed on here repeatedly), over and over, that poster becomes subversive.

I hope you can see that. Criticism is fine; subversion is not fine. If you have criticism, it's totally okay to raise it and ask for debate on it. It is not okay to sneak it in as some sort of "obviously these important things about the site are all wrong" sneaky commentary in posts allegedly about something else. Not cool.

Anyway. I suspect the primary reason Hector blew up at you here was the subversion / critical theory stuff. Low-lying sneak criticism tends to lead to a buildup in resentment among people, and it is very hard to identify - most people don't know how to pinpoint subversive content, they just know something about a guy's communications makes them feel bad and attacked but aren't able to pinpoint what it is. Please knock off the subversive stuff - if you have criticism, put it in its own standalone thread and let's have a conversation about it. Don't try to sneak it in as "oh by the way, all this core stuff about the site is totally wrong, just FYI" remarks. Nobody likes that stuff. I know it probably feels "right" because you're getting it from your university professors, but it's not an honorable way to debate.

Chase

 

[Bboy100]

Chase,

But if you're going to participate here, you can't have this simmering low-lying criticism running through everything. It undermines the site the same way simmering low-lying criticism undermines societies, social groups, or any other organization it occurs in.

Yes. I agree. Since Hector pointed it out to me at the start of the thread, I realized I was doing this. It was very much unintentional. I intentionally meant to criticize dating coaches and the PUA community as a whole. Not specifically you/Girlschase. But I understand now how posting it here can come off like I'm subtly criticizing you and only you (when in reality, a good chunk of my criticisms don't apply to you because you got shit handled which other dating coaches don't). I didn't even realize I was doing it before now. I will be more conscious and careful of how I phrase my posts in the future.

Peer review works by publishing results plus the methodology followed to arrive at those results. Others are then free to replicate those studies. Even among peer review, there is endless bickering about biased studies, improper controls, results that aren't able to be replicated, and so on. One academic friend of mine who left academia put it like this: you win in academia by publishing a lot and stabbing as many other published academics in the back as possible. Anyway, that's beside the point. Unfortunately, you can't do controlled studies on becoming a millionaire or seducing beautiful women (there are ethical rules against this as well as major practical impediments).

Yeah, that's true. This is something which I subtly implied throughout the post, but I never directly said it.

I don't believe empirical studies are law. They can be wrong too. I just think that on average, they make for considerably stronger evidence than anecdotal experience.

Moreover, all I was trying to point out is that for me personally, it has worked better to use studies, or material written by people who do studies to improve my dating life.I didn't express this clearly and directly enough. Also, I don't necessarily think everyone else should buy into that. If anecdotal experience is working better for someone else...than by all means proceed. But if I'm skeptical of the advice someone gives me, or an argument someone makes, I will ask for some sort of evidence. This is also in part due to the fact that I already have a lot of experience. So if something someone says doesn't fit into my experiences, it's probably wrong. Or at least...not applicable to me. So overall, it looks like we're in agreement here.

Also, I think I may have come off like I was saying that anyone who doesn't have a study ready to backup what they just said is basically spouting nonsense. When in reality, all I meant to say is that if I don't already agree with it, I will be skeptical because I don't have the time and energy to test stuff which I'm pretty sure won't work for me. Unless they bring something very solid (i.e. a study or material created by someone who studies the topic at hand for a living) to the table which would convince me otherwise. That is NOT the same as saying "everything you say is objectively irrelevant to everyone and should be dismissed unless backed up by research" which is probably how I've been coming off.

Thanks for the reply and for being impartial Chase. I appreciate it.

Hector,
Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it. It means a lot to me here.

went through this phase a few times and thought, "Hmm, am I developing my own thing?" Then, I talked to Chase and as you can guess, he was already twelve steps ahead of me and showed me how this curve on the journey wasn't a detraction from the process of getting girls that we lay out here at Girls Chase, but an evolution of it that is not often talked about, because it's higher level stuff (and it's hard to write about clearly without a concrete example; most guys just don't get it).

Yeah. Some if its quite nebulous and is difficult to even write about. I noticed this especially when trying to express my ideas, both in this thread and several others. I just know people aren't going to understand what I'm trying to say. I can only imagine how difficult that can get what writing an entire article or creating an entire program.

Given that this is the case, it's not unfeasible that I currently misunderstand how certain things which I think are my own might still fit into the GC modal. It's good to be aware of this.

Moreover, I have a tendency to see things in black and white (i.e. if x is right, than anything that is not x is wrong). Realistically, when it comes to something like dating, there are a lot of factors which are subjective. For one person, x might be right ("right" means it brings them results). For another, it might be wrong. I seem to have lost sight of that. This thread has helped me rediscover this truth. Thank you for that

 

[Chase]

Yes. I agree. Since Hector pointed it out to me at the start of the thread, I realized I was doing this. It was very much unintentional. I intentionally meant to criticize dating coaches and the PUA community as a whole. Not specifically you/Girlschase. But I understand now how posting it here can come off like I'm subtly criticizing you and only you (when in reality, a good chunk of my criticisms don't apply to you because you got shit handled which other dating coaches don't). I didn't even realize I was doing it before now. I will be more conscious and careful of how I phrase my posts in the future.

Cheers, Bboy.

Moreover, all I was trying to point out is that for me personally, it has worked better to use studies, or material written by people who do studies to improve my dating life.I didn't express this clearly and directly enough. Also, I don't necessarily think everyone else should buy into that.

I will tell you this, after more than a decade in this field and lots of guys I've worked with, many of whom I've seen succeed with our material, and some of whom I've seen throw it away and come back later and say some other style or method or approach worked for them where GC stuff didn't... part of it seems to be how well stuff gels with a guy's style, and part of it just seems to be raw belief. On the belief end, confidence plays such a large role in romantic success that if you think something is going to increase your results, it often well.

The belief side of things has reached the point now where if I talk to a guy and he is immediately skeptical about our stuff my response is always "this isn't the method for you; you don't believe it, and it won't work. Keep looking until you find something you're excited about." Sometimes I hear from those guys later and they've found some teacher or some method they're now thrilled with and they want to tell you all about it.

I've had a few guys come back and say wow Chase, you've got to switch what you're teaching and start teaching Mystery Method, or RSD, or Dr. Phil, or whatever it is, this is WAY better than the stuff you teach! You could help so many more people if you did! You try to explain different things gel with different guys and you're happy they love MM or RSD or Dr. Phil or whoever it is but that there is a different audience at GC, but most guys can't get that - they think if it works the best for them, it'll work the best for everyone. That's always a weird conversation. The guy can never understand why I don't want to abandon this "ineffective Girls Chase material" and start teaching Speed Seduction.

Anyway, cool. It's good you realize the black-white thing. If you get the chance, teach something where you work with students with different learning / application styles - it will teach you this better than anything else. Once you discover students doing well with things you do not think should work it makes you go, "Huh. Okay then," and the whole world starts to look a little different.

Chase