@ships I've no huge disagreements, but... Exerting a lot of effort for every single one woman you go after is not viable, unless you are naturally Machiavellian - in which case it's subconscious, so you don't exert effort anyway. It's more of a PUA-style game.
The RP way is investing in your personal qualities that make you attractive to all girls, and pick from the net what fish you like.
So, for example, cocky-funny works because it makes you entertain yourself, and makes you content, which is attractive. It's not because you press the particular girl's specific buttons.
@TakeHerToAGayBar Its not a "hardware" vs "software" debate. Its a "engage with the human" vs "engage with the statistical/scientific/psychoanalytical model of the human" debate. I say do both.
And as far as humans go, its BOTH hardware AND software. Good luck trying to isolate them when talking to a woman or dissecting a woman's psyche for analysis.
@ships Again, agree one hundred percent.
Most of the great humanistic psychologists, like Carl Rogers found that after he had studied psychoanalysis and the scientific approach none of it helped him in interacting with people. He was trying to diagnose and interpret everyone.
It was only when he threw it all out the window, threw away the theories, models and started connecting with people that he saw people change.
@ships Agree one hundred percent. Like I've said, a person is an organismic being. Biology and general tendencies play a big part. I don't discredit that.
But as you've alluded to, to remain generalized misses the individual uniqueness of a person.
Psychology came to this cross-roads back in the days of 'behavioural psychology', science and evo psyche.
For example, in trying to establish who would be good leaders they came up with 'trait theory'. The idea you could make a generalized concept of the consistent traits which make a good leader. You could then come up with surveys and if a person was deemed to have the correct traits then they were put in leadership positions. The old 'we have studied humans enough to predict what you will do'.
But this didn't always pan out, because people are greater than just certain traits.
This was a similar path in many fields where they came to realise it is extremely difficult to practice determinism based on generalization.
So in essence we have similar traits, generalized tendencies but we are also utterly unique. How those things will manifest is paved in unique ways, and people ALWAYS have ability to act against general patterns and past behaviours.
You and I are men, and as men we most likely share similar drives, biology, desires etc. At the same time, we are probably very different.Read More
@adam-l @INNASKILLZ2K20 Why not engange each women individually, while simultaneously having knowledge about their actions and manipulations in general? Purely generalized knowledge leads to "all women are whores and subhuman" "all men are asshole rapists and subhuman". Purely individual knowledge leads to "no no this woman is the ONE" "no no he's not like the other guys who fuck me and leave". Why not do both simultaneously?
@ships all manipulation.
Stay in your own frame. I don't give a shit about any girl's ex. Nothing to do with me. Don't care. That her frame, her experiences, her point of reference.
All I care about is my frame, and will she fit in?
A big part of that is 'do not mention any ex's, unless you want to waste my time'.
She is there to serve me. We are not there to make up, buy into, give a shit about anything to do with their ex's.