Video on how to get a woman?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ideally, perhaps. But that also requires you to divorce playing games with the majority practioners of it. Of course we don't live in a perfect, ideal world, so those who tend to use game tend to evidence misogynistic beliefs (is it any surprise that the biggest defenders of it are those like Heraclitus and Aneeshm who already have built up a reputation of misogyny?).

Furthermore, as I stated somewhat, the fashions in which you say things or think things matter. I think it tends to respect people better if you refrain from treating them like a game object (seriously, the whole 'built her interest' which I've seen expressed in terms of percentages sounds like a video game rather than a healthy personal relationship).

FWIW, I respect David Floyd a good deal more than Heraclitus and Aneeshm for the simple fact that, in reading his Facebook page and his threads here, it appears that instead of altering his personality, he treats his potential female targets exactly the same as he treats his male friends (well, you know what I mean - he's aggressive towards them as well - it isn't like he sits around softly talking about the great questions of life with his male friends and then turns into some 'cocky and funny' alpha male around women). It's far more honest.

[aneeshm]

....so those who tend to use game....

Had you read through the thread, you'd have realised that I don't use it in my personal life (except to gain a better understanding of what is going on). There are a number of girls I know in my social circle or circle of acquaintances who I am quite confident I could "game". I don't. I've told you in this thread why I don't.

FWIW, I respect David Floyd a good deal more than Heraclitus and Aneeshm for the simple fact that, in reading his Facebook page and his threads here, it appears that instead of altering his personality, he treats his potential female targets exactly the same as he treats his male friends (well, you know what I mean - he's aggressive towards them as well - it isn't like he sits around softly talking about the great questions of life with his male friends and then turns into some 'cocky and funny' alpha male around women). It's far more honest.

You are free to insult others all you want. But before you proceed, there are a few things I want to point out, which I think you've missed.

Let it be noted that I don't "change my personality" around anybody, ever. I have advised others to do so in response to a specific problem because that is what I think the solution to that particular problem is. Another thing you fail to acknowledge is that like many others, this skill is one which has to be learnt. If there is something "wrong" with your personality, one of the best ways of fixing it is to simply change your behaviour; the personality change will follow. The human mind is a wonderfully flexible thing. As the skill is acquired, the underlying personality also changes.

I'll take myself as an example. Who I was two years ago and who I am now are very different people. That's because I consciously decided to change who I was. I wasn't satisfied with some of my habits, some shortcomings, some aspects of my personality, and so on, and now I have eliminated them. I used a variety of means to do so. One of them was an almost meditative self-awareness whenever I was doing something I wanted to change. This "extreme introspection" allowed to me to pinpoint exactly why I was doing something, why and how I was doing it wrong, and what I could do to change it.

I'll make this concrete. One thing I wasn't content with was my attitude to the small problems of life. I had a tendency to attempt to find the source of all unease or unhappiness outside my actions, or to blame circumstances. This led to a passive attitude, which prevented improvement. I decided to change that. During that period, I started to consciously think, whenever I found myself in a situation which displeased me, or even whenever I suffered the slightest of setbacks in the most trivial of things, what I could do to make sure I never found myself in that situation again. The first step was to force myself to accept that I was responsible (even if I wasn't). If it was something genuinely out of my control, I held myself responsible for not having or bringing it under my control before it could have an effect. If it wasn't something I had not (or could not have) foreseen, I held myself at fault for not making it foreseeable or for not having known. This was the first step.

After that, the next problem was to pinpoint what I did wrong, and to fix it. My previous exposure to "game", combined with my study of world literature, along with my interest in the emerging field of sociobiology, made that possible. The most difficult part was to change the pattern of behaviour, because passivity allows you to stay in your comfort zone and blame everything except yourself for you actions. Doing something new for the first time is hard. But it had to be done, and I did it.

After that, it was simply a matter of incremental improvement, which became much easier after the change in attitude. That same change has had a lot of other beneficial effects - I am more effective while working, with friends, with authority, and in general with life. It took me quite a long time (almost a year and a half) to shake off the pernicious effects of the rubbish that is ambient in the culture, but it had to be done, and done it was. The process of improvement continues.

In just under one and a half a years, I have gone from being an introvert to an extrovert. I am still going.

You, with your Christian outlook, seem to be confusing the person with his "soul". A personality is not a "soul" which never changes, it is simply another aspect of being human, and can be changed like anything else. Let me illustrate with an example. The best way for a person who wants a more muscular body is to exercise in a way which will cause muscle growth. However, it is only the last few repetitions, the ones which are outside your comfort zone and which would not be "normally" within your strength, which go to actually increasing muscle mass. Would you call someone who did that "fake"?

It is for this reason that I advocate the policy of "fake it till you make it". If you continue doing this for some time, say six months to a year, by the end of that time, the underlying man will have changed so that that behaviour now comes naturally to him. Personalities are not inscribed in stone. Traits may be. Social behaviour is not.

You have characterised the techniques I advised AS to use as manipulative. Have you considered that some people could, for whatever reason, be genuinely lacking in social skills? It appears that AS is one such. If he has a real problem with either his personality or how he projects it, the thing to do is to change the personality or the projection. Like everything else about being human, that too is mutable. Social skills can be learnt. In this regard, I suggested what I thought best. If he continues to do it for enough time, he'll end up a natural. Naturals are often born, but can, with time and effort, be made.

For instance, the "don't appear needy" advice sounds artificial to someone like AS, because he is needy right now. If, however, he succeeds in his attempts (even intermittently), or sees some progress, what was formerly "manipulative" by your definition shall become natural to him, as he realises that there is no need for him to be needy any longer, because he has options he did not have before. That, and a hundred other little things like that, feed on themselves, and become a virtuous cycle. Often, it is the first step which seems most artificial. Once the "groove" is established, everything further comes naturally.

In a sense, you are correct. It is manipulative, but only if you consider manipulating yourself into becoming a better person is manipulative. In normal English, it's called improvement.

[aneeshm]

Another thing you should not forget, Imran, is that an understanding of the first principles of some field of inquiry, and of some technologies emergent from them, does not say anything about the morality of using those technologies.

The fact is (and shall remain) that humans are animals, and with sufficient sophistication, can be observed as such. Have you seen those TV shows where they describe some animal's life, and around five minutes are dedicated to that animal's courtship rituals? "Game" is simply the same, only applied to humans. Because we have much larger brains and are far more intelligent and introspective, along with having a much higher social ability and language to complicate things, the same fundamental strategies found in animal kingdom, when considered in a human context, tend to be tremendously more complicated in their application and expression. But at their core, they are the same; the root does not change. "Game" means looking at us the way we look at animals. It's refreshingly honest, in my view. Whether or not you use it is your decision, and you may make it into a large moral issue. As far as I'm concerned, it gives us a good understanding of what's going on, and that's enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A) That was way too long
B) That was especially way too long to backtrack so spectacularly

Seriously, glancing back over page 1, to assert now that all you were saying was Albert needs to make small changes to make himself a better person is laughable. Especially considering in the early aspects of this conversation you were all remarking on the proper hunting technique of this strange animal called woman. And, of course, considering those of us on the "opposite side" were saying Speer needs to simply go out and be social with folks and work on his social skills and soon enough, a woman will come, without the need of these mystical hunting techniques...

Furthermore, while humans are animals, we are FAR more than just animals. Yes, we have a soul, and we have the ability to reason. So to treat people or look at people as mere animals is devaluing them, which is why we have pity on you.

[OzzyKP]

Possibly. But where I imagine pheromones would play the biggest part (initial attraction), isn't the problem for me. I have no trouble getting girls interested (although women are weird so who knows if they're really interested?), it's what happens after the initial meeting that is the problem.

I think my social skills are screwed up; hence the reason for this thread. I don't know how to have the right type of conversation with a girl. I've had women praise me for being easy to talk to and having conversations with me that were longer and more interesting than any conversations they've had with other men but this might not be the right sort of conversations. Or something.

Although I get the 'adorable' thing a lot. And I mean a lot. Adorable isn't good for a man

While I am by no means an expert on dating, I seem to have the opposite problems as you. If I can get over those first awkward meetings, then I'm golden. Keeping girls is much easier than getting them for me.

If they are attracted to you and find you easy to talk to, that seems to be 90% of what is required. Are you sure they are even looking for a relationship?

How are you meeting these girls? I've had some mixed success with online dating, but one nice thing about it is that you can lay down certain expectations up front. You are both on a dating site looking for a long term relationship. Whether you guys hit it off or not is another question, but at least you'll weed out girls just looking for a friend or looking for someone to talk about shoes with. You know up front that they are looking for the same thing you are.

You need to be clear about your expectations too, and understand what you want and what you will and won't accept.

Dating a girl for five years, and not having sex with her while she was a prostitute just boggles my mind. I skipped most of the thread, but are you intent on waiting till marriage? Is that why you never had sex? Or was something else going on? I certainly understand not wanting to wait a bit and not jump in bed on the first date, but 5 years... yikes.

If you intend to wait till marriage then you need to make that clear up front too. Dating sites make it less awkward to list that in a profile or ad somewhere. Better than trying to slip that in while talking on a first date. If girls aren't going to be ok with that, you need to know that right away and not waste time with them.

If, on the other hand, you aren't trying to wait for marriage, then go back to my point about being clear about what you want. Your ex either didn't truly consider you to be dating, or was just walking over you and using you. If you don't stick up for yourself and assert yourself they'll (i.e. anyone) will take advantage of you.

So to sum it up, if they are attracted to you, enjoy talking to you (which I assume implies chemistry), are in fact looking for a long term relationship, and you are clear and honest about what you are looking for, then I don't see what else you're missing.

[OzzyKP]

I haven't gotten yet into everything that Aneeshm and Heraclitus were nice enough to send me but I just wanted to mention this...

My dilemma is not with the 'picking up' so to speak. I am pretty successful in getting the number and getting the girl to agree to let me take her out (I'm actually a pretty damn attractive man believe it or not). For about a week, the girl would do things like come up to my job looking for me, even when I'm not there, her girlfriends would come to me and talk to me about her (meaning she talked to them about me), she finds me and asks me if I've called her yet but she didn't recognize the number, etc. This has happened on several occasions. They are definitely interested in me.

And these aren't average girls. These are stunning women who model AND are honor students in a major like engineering. Top prospects whose ex-boyfriends are football or basketball players (consider I went to a Division I school).

The problem is everything grinds to a halt in Week 2. All of a sudden, all interest vanishes.

Now female friends who I'm not trying to pull and so I'm more willing to talk about my romantic failures to, are always puzzled by this. They do not see how it's puzzle that 1) I have so much difficulty 2) Women are very attracted to me at first glance but then lose all interest quickly. They've shown me to their friends who think I'm so great for a week or so, then all interest is gone and my friend who introduced me is all like I don't get it! What happened? What did you do?

I've made it a habit now to ask girls who I'm not interested when I first meet them, what kind of guy do they think I am. They always say a playboy kind of guy and don't believe me when I tell them they're wrong. They don't believe me when I tell them I've only had about one girlfriend and that I'm a virgin. They find it mind boggling. Until they witness women and even their girlfriends incredibly interested then lose interest within a few days.

Now one girl told me why. She was all smiles when I picked her up, eagerly giving me her number, agreeing to let me take her to dinner. The next day, when I didn't call her, she came to me asking me if I had called her cause she didn't recognize a number that called her. 'No, wasn't me. You want me to call you? I'll call you tonight then." "no rush," she said. Anyway, after a few weeks, it died down. I saved the conversation:

i could tell u were lyn... or tryna play it cool
that right there annoyed me
u lack confidence
i cud c it n ur face
n da way u walk
n a nutshel.... ur gullible/a pushova, u lack confidence, ur 2 eager almos 2 dapoint where u seem desperate..... all these qualities ne1 wud attribute 2 a female
wut heterosexual woman wants to b wit a man dat acts like a woman
ur really sensitive

Just like that. Somehow, I first strike them as an Alpha male, they are interested, then I'm a sucker and they lose interest.

The problem is if I use this pickup stuff, how does that really change anything? She said she could tell after a while that I was faking it. How can I look like I'm not faking it when I basically am?

My other bit of advice is you are just going after the wrong girls. (or the wrong girls are going after you). If girls think you are a playboy, are attracted to that, find out you aren't, and then drop you, then your solution is to find girls who aren't looking for that.

Now, the particulars of what I could discern from the above girl are true as well. Being more confident & not desperate are good just in general. But I disagree with the "game" folks in this thread, you don't need to change who you are to get a girl, you just need to find the right girl who values you. Find a non-sexist girl. They are out there.

Again, trying some dating sites may help you to figure that out up front.

[aneeshm]

A) That was way too long
B) That was especially way too long to backtrack so spectacularly

Seriously, glancing back over page 1, to assert now that all you were saying was Albert needs to make small changes to make himself a better person is laughable.

It appears that I was too subtle. Let me be blunt:

a) I do not personally use "game". (Except to know what is going on in any given situation.)
b) I think Albert should use game because that is the solution to his problem as he presents it.
c) I think that as he uses it more, he shall become one of the naturals.

That's it.

I would have thought that would have been crystal clear from the context of what I wrote, and the accusations and insults I was responding to.

Especially considering in the early aspects of this conversation you were all remarking on the proper hunting technique of this strange animal called woman.

I still recommend them to Speer, if his problem is what he states it to be.

And, of course, considering those of us on the "opposite side" were saying Speer needs to simply go out and be social with folks and work on his social skills and soon enough, a woman will come, without the need of these mystical hunting techniques...

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. He's obviously doing something wrong. He has been following your advice, insipid and devoid of utility as it is, for too long now already. His attempts to implement it have obviously not been successful, or he would not have asked for help. If your clichés and platitudes were what he were looking for, he could have got them for free on any of the hundreds of television channels that litter the airwaves.

I am giving him things which he can actually use. People are different, and so are their wants and needs. If following a pre-scripted pattern is what it takes to get him started, so be it.

Furthermore, while humans are animals, we are FAR more than just animals.

Then we have found the root of our disagreement. Yes, we are superior animals. (But I would say that, wouldn't I; from every animal's point of view, it is the greatest.) But we are animals nonetheless.

Yes, we have a soul, and we have the ability to reason.

I have no wish to engage in any theological disputation. That we are conscious, I concede. That we do not know how to explain it, I also concede. But I shall not attempt to avoid facing my ignorance by calling the phenomenon the result of an undefinable referent of an arbitrary word. Saying that we have a "soul" explains, in real terms, nothing at all. By using the term you are avoiding the question and not facing up to the fact that you are ignorant.

Our ability to reason, by the way, is strictly limited by our biological context and evolutionary history. It is a very curiously warped ability. (There are some interesting experiments that demonstrate that. The one where many more people solved a puzzle correctly when it was translated into something our instincts could relate to is a case in point.) That we do not see this is because we view the world through the lenses of our reason; its limits are not perceived as limits at all, but the natural boundaries of what reason is. But our reason no more or less than any of our other biological endowments. It is not divine, or extra-worldly. It is simply another innate drive and ability with which we are equipped.

If you do not see this, you shall make a fetish of our ability to reason, and apotheosise it. (As indeed you have, from what I can see.) You shall not heed the Biblical injunctions about the imperfections of our capacity to reason, and of the superiority of God's word. (I see this too in you, Imran. You would not be recognised as a Christian by anybody a hundred years ago or more. Your way of thinking is descended from the Dissenters, and the most radical of them, not from traditional Christianity.) Your worshipping of reason - and to be honest, I don't find much of if in your words - is a form of pride, I may say even hubris, and it is one for which the price must sooner or later be paid.

(Note that I am not a Christian, but I am trying to point out why no traditional Christian would ever think of you as one of them. The above paragraph is a critique of your position from a Christian point of view.)

So to treat people or look at people as mere animals is devaluing them, which is why we have pity on you.

I do not exclude myself when considering man an exquisitely refined animal. Honest assessment is not devaluation, unless your standard of value is theological.

You are not displaying pity here, you are displaying contempt. But that not being a Christian virtue, you couch it in other terms. At least be honest with yourself. You provide here a spectacle of disgusting hypocrisy.

Reserve your pity for those who deserve it, and your arrogance for those willing to bear it. I do not have the patience left for much more of your irrational perversion of Christianity as a shield for your personal views.

[aneeshm]

But I disagree with the "game" folks in this thread, you don't need to change who you are to get a girl, you just need to find the right girl who values you.

Most of the changes suggested have been for the better.

Question: Why should the "right girl" value him at all? If he does not know how to dance the dance of human courtship, being surrounded by "right girls" isn't going to be of the slightest use.

[OzzyKP]

You assume it is universal. It isn't. Different people are attracted to different things. Different people seek out different things in a mate.

If someone keeps getting dumped by girls because he is unable to buy them fancy jewelry all the time, his solution isn't to wait until he can make an assload of money, his solution is to stop dating shallow gold diggers. That isn't revolutionary advice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I merely wish to address this:

You would not be recognised as a Christian by anybody a hundred years ago or more

You are a moron. Fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon in Christianity. It was St. Augustine who stated that when science and our interpretation of the Scriptures collide, we should re-interpret Scripture, not ignore science. And indeed early Church thinkers took our ability to reason as evidence of divinity upon us (one can easily see this on the Greek focus of the early Church thinkers).

You are not displaying pity here, you are displaying contempt.

You just don't want to admit to yourself that we are pitying you. It would make you feel better if you thought we were just contemptuous. There is more contempt for Ben, but actually we feel sorry for you, and anyone else that attempts to feel so self-important as an attempt to blunt their insecurities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You assume it is universal. It isn't. Different people are attracted to different things. Different people seek out different things in a mate.

If someone keeps getting dumped by girls because he is unable to buy them fancy jewelry all the time, his solution isn't to wait until he can make an assload of money, his solution is to stop dating shallow gold diggers. That isn't revolutionary advice.

The mistake that is made is the idea that there is just one type of woman out there. It tends to be a mistake of youth (sorry Ozzy). As you live life, you'll find that there are people with various types of interests. And that may require you to wait. It happens.

[aneeshm]

I merely wish to address this:

You would not be recognised as a Christian by anybody a hundred years ago or more

You are a moron. Fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon in Christianity. It was St. Augustine who stated that when science and our interpretation of the Scriptures collide, we should re-interpret Scripture, not ignore science. And indeed early Church thinkers took our ability to reason as evidence of divinity upon us (one can easily see this on the Greek focus of the early Church thinkers).

I am not talking of fundamentalism or science at all, I am talking of very basic Christian values. The Noahide Laws, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount, to take basic examples. Or the worldview of the Old and New Testaments, and the advice of Jesus, which you are supposed to follow. Your Dissenter roots show through when you hold yourself above the Son of God while picking and choosing what to obey of scripture even when it has no reference to any science, and speaks only of man and his life.

You are not displaying pity here, you are displaying contempt.

You just don't want to admit to yourself that we are pitying you. It would make you feel better if you thought we were just contemptuous. There is more contempt for Ben, but actually we feel sorry for you, and anyone else that attempts to feel so self-important as an attempt to blunt their insecurities.

At this point, there is not much left to say. Your psycho-analysis is weak, and you have strayed so far from the Christian path that I do not know of any shepherd who can bring you back to the flock.

[aneeshm]

You assume it is universal. It isn't. Different people are attracted to different things. Different people seek out different things in a mate.

If someone keeps getting dumped by girls because he is unable to buy them fancy jewelry all the time, his solution isn't to wait until he can make an assload of money, his solution is to stop dating shallow gold diggers. That isn't revolutionary advice.

What if he simply doesn't know how to express what he wants? That is, if he has many interesting things to say, but doesn't know the language in which they are supposed to be said?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Then he should leave women alone and stick to soft toys and finger-painting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am not talking of fundamentalism or science at all, I am talking of very basic Christian values. The Noahide Laws, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount, to take basic examples. Or the worldview of the Old and New Testaments, and the advice of Jesus, which you are supposed to follow. Your Dissenter roots show through when you hold yourself above the Son of God while picking and choosing what to obey of scripture even when it has no reference to any science, and speaks only of man and his life.

Your theology is even more **** than your viewpoint on women.

Seriously, if you've never heard of humanity being able to reason as indictative of a divine spark in us, then you have held your head in the sand for waaaay too long.