Does game work?

I’ve been reading a lot about game lately and there’s one thing that strikes me: There are dozens, if not hundreds of valid stories out there, everyday guys talking about how game changed their lives for the better. OTOH I’ve never seen a single guy saying he has tried game and it didn’t work*. There are lots of naysayers out there, but they’ve never actually tried game. This becomes apparent the moment they open their mouths and start talking nonsense like “game is fakery”, “game is hard work” and so on and so forth. We who actually know what game is also know what game isn’t. Some naysayers read about game and decide it does not work sitting in front of their computers. Some of them do not even read, they just shut their minds the moment they see the first sign of game-related jargon.

What is even more intriguing is that there are naysayers out there who even admit that game works. They just don’t want to put in the effort to have better relationships. They say women should desire them sexually no matter what they do because of their marriage vows. They are like the “fat acceptance” idiots insisting men should desire fat women. Of course we sane people know that’s not how instincts work, but once you’re stuck with the notion that you’re entitled to something it’s very hard to let go. So if you think you’re entitled to be desired no matter how desirable you actually are, then game is a bitter pill to swallow.

Anyway, to get back to the point: there are people who think game doesn’t work, and there are people who have tried it. There is no intersection between the two sets. To me this says everything.

* Well, there are of course bitter idiots out there, like OmegaVirginRevolt, who say they’ve tried game but in fact it’s clear as daylight they don’t understand a word of it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Game and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Does game work?

  1. Keoni Galt says:

    I got into a debate with two game haters over at Dalrock’s last night after I had a few drinks and was drunk-commenting. It seems that many of the opponents ask for definitive, scientific proof that a game theory works, otherwise it’s just false and self-contradictory.

    Here was part of my response:

    This concept of “Game” is like discussing strategies in fighting. You could have the perfect game plan, get the best possible training, and get as prepared as you can be, and still get your ass kicked come fight time.

    That’s because you have uncontrollable variables (the other party) that will alter the outcome, in a dynamic, fluid event for which no outcome is assured.

    I.e. Game is like teaching a man how to throw a series of punches like a boxing combination. You can teach him. Drill him on it. You can tell him that if he lands all of his punches, he will knock out his opponent.

    But when it comes to fight time, can he avoid his opponents combinations, and time his own to land them effectively? And what if he does all that, but his opponent is tough as hell and doesn’t go down? He has to adjust, adapt and come up with a new attack on the fly.

    That is essentially all that “Game” is. A bunch of guys exchanging techniques and strategies to prepare for the next time they face their opponent. It’s about scouting out the opposition. You notice that when the opponent always bobs his head to the right when you jab, so next time you face him, try and throw a feint jab and follow up with a lead left hook and catch him moving his head right into that hook.

    Great strategy. Could work. Might not.

    You can’t “prove” that a 1-3 ~ jab/hook wins fights. But you can certainly tell someone how it worked for you the last time you fought, you can teach them how to throw it themselves so they can practice doing it, and maybe he should try it and see if he can get it to work for him, too. Might work. Might not. Neither outcome would offer definitive “proof” that the 1-3 combination wins fights.

    It’s the same thing with this debate about “Game” and “shit tests.”

  2. Jehu says:

    I hate the fact that Game works. I hate what it says about our species—how ungrateful we are by nature (if gratitude for favors done was natural to human beings, Game as we know it would not work, Game’s fundamental premise is that people who do YOU favors tend to like you better as a result, which is ass-backwards but unfortunately nearly totally true). I hate the fact that I need to be either Hammer or Anvil.

    But I live in the real world, so I employ quite a few of the methods of Game. I must interact with the species of woman that I have, not the one I might like to have.

  3. George says:

    Game does not work – check out this site, http://www.seductionmyth.com

    I have tried it, and it did not work for me. It made me weird socially. When I was a game believer my brother in law was going through a rough patch with his wife and I advised him to do game, sent him to all the blogs, etc. The result was his wife almost left and him and he became visibly weaker, in front of my eyes, as he tried to be dominating and cocky, etc. I also have a good friend who trained with a top game guru in NYC for about a year, and eventually gave up, saying game made no difference. In fact, I know of no real life story of game actually working. This same game guru (a friend of mine) had/has a slew of pupils learning game who never get any better and never succeed. They just live on hope.

    There is a good site showing that game does not work http://www.seductionmyth.com, and commenter Piotr gives an excellent explanation of why seduction CANNOT POSSIBLY work, because human mating takes part in a part of the brain that is not accessible to conscious thought.

    In short, deansdale, you dont know WHAT worked. You have no clue. In order to know you have to isolate variables. It could have been a gazillion other things that you are discounting. Thats how science works – by isolating variables. Thing is, we humans have a shit-load of cognitive bias built in to our system. We often see what we want to see and we often are completely delusional about what is really happening. That is why all the anecdotal evidence really does not amount to much. For instance, I know guys who are miserable with women but who are convinced, absolutely convinced, that they are unstoppable lotharios. They will swear, just swear, that game works, but they are self-delusional. They are mass approach machines and hook up with a tiny percentage of women, after being blown out by hundreds. But they are blind to their failures and focus only on their successes. These self-delusional people provide the bulk of the anecdotal evidence that *game works*.

    Because we humans have these incredible cognitive biasses and an infinite capacity for self-delusion, anecdotal evidence just wont cut it – we need science, and game has never been proven scientifically. It would be easy to prove game scientifically, but it has never been done. In fact, Roissy/heartiste has this hilarious post up citing a scientific paper that game works, when the paper states in the most unequivocal terms possible that the most important factor is a mans looks. It is almost astonishing that roissy/heartiste cites this paper as evidence for game – but like I said, cognitive biasses and self-delusion.

    The paper goes on to say that the second most important correlate was a mans *sociosexuality*, which is a term that refers to someones willingness to have sex without commitment (in other words, hoe sexually promiscuous you are). Since roissy/heartiste is scientifically illiterate, he thought sociosexuality refers to a mans attitudes and personality attributes when interacting with a member of the opposite sex, so he claimed the study showed that game worked!

    It was a quite stunning piece of charlatanism on roiss/heartistes part, designed for the most gullible of fools (those who read roissy). The study gave the clearest refutation of game possible 1) It said LOOKS mattered most for men, and 2) It said how willing a man was to have sex without commitments had some, much lesser, predictive power as well.

    That roissy could cite a paper so clearly refuting him speaks to the incredible cognitive biasses our species is afflicted with, and why we need science.

    I eventually concluded that all trying to be different than who you are makes you weaker as a man. I may be naturally weak, but paradoxically, I become weaker when I try to pretend I am not weak. I might be nervous around others, but caring that others will see my nervousness just adds one more layer of nervousness. The way to snap out of it is to LET OTHERS SEE I AM NERVOUS. To no longer hide myself. I admit, though, that this level of maturity and insight took lots of time and struggle to achieve, and that the insight is somewhat paradoxical and counter-intuitive, and for that reason will probably never be popular.

    Game is very intuitive – it appeals strongly to how we think things SHOULD work, which is why it is so popular amongst men. These days it is pretty much a mass movement. It would seem to make sense that the way to become strong is to deny that you are weak, to *work on* becoming strong. That *trying to become strong and manly* only makes you weaker and less manly takes a certain comfort with counter-intuitive thought to fully grasp. It is sad to see so many men do game not realizing that their efforts to become manly are compounding their original weakness. They are stuck in a maze and they cannot see the exit. The most manly thing in the world is to just be yourself, and only .0001% of the population has the courage to do that. It is funny to see how game says being yourself is the stupidest thing in the world – as if anybody is themselves these days! Being yourself takes an incredible amount of courage and development. You have to remove layers of fear, built up over a lifetime, of what others will think of the genuine YOU, warts and all, weakness and all. Everyone wears a mask. It takes incredible courage to take it off. As if being yourself is easy! Being yourself is one of the most difficult things out there. It takes fearlessness. Game merely adds one more layer of fear of what others will think to the many layers you built up over a lifetime. Dont ever let anyone tell you that game requires one iota of courage.

    But again, it takes a certain kind of mind, a mind used to spotting subtleties and used to the fact that often the truth is NOT obvious but paradoxical, to be able to think this way. Most mainstream men just dont have this kind of mind. They can only see obvious things and think in an obvious way. Unfortunately, sometimes reality is a bit more subtle.

  4. George says:

    Keoni, your analogy does not work, because we know that a jab has some kind of impact, even if it did not win the fight. We have no evidence that any game tactic has any kind of impact whatsoever. None. It is just a belief system. We have evidence that a jab will do some damage – we have no evidence game will *do some damage*, so to speak, so your analogy does not work. The question is not what wins the fight, but what has an impact. Even your own experience provides no evidence that it works, because it could have been other factors. I have spent entire years of my life convinced something I did or said was responsible for something in my relationship with another person, only to discover that it was something completely different. We humans have incredible cognitive blind spots.

    By saying it might or might not work you are admitting that you have absolutely no idea if game works. It might. It might not. Your words.

    Also, no one is saying it is contradictory because it is not scientifically proven. You are just mashing concepts there incoherently. People say it is self-contradicting because it makes no sense to become stronger by learning to be more concerned than ever with what women think of you, when the essence of strength is that you care less what others think of you. These are two separate issues – lets keep them separate.

  5. Deansdale says:

    #Jehu: “I hate the fact that Game works. I hate what it says about our species—how ungrateful we are by nature”
    You only have to understand that what you find attractive is influenced by evolution, and this is also true for women. They find attractive those traits in men which ensure their offspring’s survival.
    It says nothing shameful about our species. What is shameful is that so many of us misunderstand completely how our instincts work. Just as a fat, old & ugly woman can not make a man desire her by giving him gifts, a beta man can not make a woman desire him by giving her gifts. (By “gifts” now I mean anything from time, energy, resources, a shoulder to cry on, etc.)
    There is way a beta man can make a woman desire him, though: by becoming more attractive. Is that so hard to understand?

  6. Deansdale says:

    George, I will admit that I could have made my points clearer. Of course you can “try game” and fail – if you do not understand the core concepts and you do it wrong.
    After reading the first few sentences you wrote it is painfully obvious to me how you and your brother managed to screw up. You thought (and still think) that game is a set of techniques and tricks, eg. something that changes you coming from the outside. If you try to “use techniques” on your wife who knows you to be a beta it will never work.
    Game is actually the method of freeing you from the chains of your f*cked-up upbringing, which made you a beta in the first place. It has to come from within. You have to realize that you have been misled to believe that cutting off your own balls and ripping out your own spine is the proper way to behave toward women. Dalrock – among many others – describes this quite well by saying that the last few generations of men have been thoroughly feminized by misguided parents, the media, schools, etc.
    Game is the realization that all that is bullshit – and the realization that you are a decent human being worthy of having his own pride, his own balls&spine, his own happiness, his own dreams, and a happy marriage with lots of quality sex. And that you can achive this by standing up for yourself, thus becoming a (lesser) alpha. If you change from the inside, and learn how to handle conflicts, you can do no wrong. If you are a beta in your soul and you only use some techniques you found on the net you can do no right.

    If you think game is something “external” you don’t understand anything.

  7. Deansdale says:

    And the site you linked to is pure unmitigated bullshit.
    You can fight the truth tooth and nail, it will still be true. Those of us who understood this are all the happier for it. Those who cannot accept truth and fight it will only get more and more bitter (that much is blatantly obvious already). It’s anybody’s choice which side they want to be on.

  8. George says:

    Deansdale, so game has to come from within, it is not external. You characterize it as a man learning to grow balls and de-feminize himself. Great – such a man then becomes his own person and is no longer motivated by trying to be attractive to others. That is the subtle cognitive dissonance that game excels in, and listen carefully, because this is a subtle point – learning to grow a pair of balls in order to make others attracted to you undercuts the genuineness and authenticity of having grown a pair of balls It cannot be done. Its like squaring a circle. You weaken yourself even as you try to strengthen yourself. When you come from the frame of trying to be attractive to others, you put yourself in a weak place. Game SAYS its about becoming stronger, but it is actually not. Thats just its marketing stance to reel in the gullible.

    But of course you are being completely disingenuous when you say game has to come from inside and is not about externals. Dalrock acts cocky/funny so that his wife will like him even if he is not feeling cocky/funny. He does it anyways, even if he is not feeling it. The same goes for all the rest of game.

    So how can you say it is not about externals? Dalrock himself, and you elsewhere, ADMIT it is. You say – do this to make her like you, EVEN if it is not how you are feeling right now. Are you feeling gentle and playful? ACT cocky/funny to make her like you! Are you feeling affectionate and warm? Act brazen and sexual so that she will like you!

    Both you and Dalrock say this, and then turn around and say it is not about externals? See, it is this kind of cognitive dissonance that game excels in. It boggles the mind. You are just being strategically disingenuous.

    You see, INTENT gets communicated through actions, no matter how hard you try to disguise it. If the INTENT is to make the woman attracted to you, you will be sub-communicating neediness and weakness, no matter how hard you try. If the INTENT is simply to be more masculine, then you are not coming from a place of trying to make women attracted to you.

    Let me give you an illustration – a man who has found his balls and re-masculinized himself is not going to be cocky/funny if he is not feeling that way, if he is feeling sad or just gentle, just so that his wife will find him attractive! See what I am saying? Game SAYS its about finding your balls, but thats just marketing. In fact, its about surrendering your balls.

    But like I said, its a subtle and mildly paradoxical point, and most guys have a really hard time getting it. Its just sad to me that guys desperately want to become stronger and more masculine and are being sold something that will undermine them at the very root of their psyches. Men need to be told to stop being concerned with what women do or dont like and to develop backbones – if they feel affectionate and warm, they should have the courage to act on that, even if women DESPISE them for it. THAT would be teaching men to be their own autonomous selves and become stronger once again.

    But doing things because YOU like it without regard to what women like is tough, it takes strength, it takes courage, because you have to face the possibility that women really wont like you if you! And facing THAT takes more courage than most men have.

    Thats why I always say Game is beta – any man who does not, at some point instinctively recoil at the idea that he has to tailor his personality to suit women (even from the inside), any man who does not eventually see through the charade that game is about masculinity (because it is masculine to be cocky/funny when you are feeling warm and gentle out of fear that your wife will despise you) at some point – not necessarily right away – but if he lacks that emotional residue deep inside his being that does not make him sick with himself for acting this way after a while, such a man is lost to masculinity and strength. He simply does not have it in him.

    To me mind, I admire the man who is unafraid of what others think, especially women, and is not afraid to be warm and loving and gentle if that is how he FEELS AT THAT MOMENT. THAT is strength to me – not cocky/funny done out of fear of your wife.

  9. Game has worked in my marriage. It is not difficult. It is mostly about a modicum of self-control and the right inner attitude. I am happier. My wife is happier.

  10. George says:

    Oh, and your dismissal of that site sounds more like an angry religious plea than a reasoned analysis.

  11. George says:

    David Collard?

    How do you know game worked? How do you know that it was not some other factor? Maybe the mere fact that you started to pay more attention to your wife? You see, you dont know. You cant possibly without scientific tests. You just have an extremely low threshold for evidence and belief, and are credulous. You are the sort of person willing to accept things with little evidence.

    I have spent years of my life convinced something I said or did made someone I knew hate me, or that something else I said or did made others like me, only to find out later that I was completely off the mark. We humans have cognitive biasses built in ESPECIALLY in areas of our personal life – it is one of the most common things.

    To the extent that SOMETHING worked for you, you have no way of knowing it was game. You are just a true believer.

    Besides, the internet is littered with accounts of people who did game and seriously fucked themselves up and became social weirdos because of it. There is just as much anecdotal evidence that game fucks you up as that it works.

  12. George
    You claim to know what kind of person I am. Clever.
    I have been married 25 years. When I use Game, my wife reacts positively. When I don’t, I get another reaction. It is like clockwork.
    There are no tricks. All it is is using the more manly parts of your natural personality and not the less manly. I can be gentle or playful or whatever, provided I take care not to be weak.
    I don’t normally argue from credentials, but since you have called me credulous and unscientific, I will mention that I have a PhD in science.

  13. George says:

    David Collard, I was simply describing the behavior you display in this post. Maybe you are not credulous in other areas of your life, I dont know. We all have blind spots.

    Again, without scientifically isolating variables, you just cant know if it is game that is working. There are just too many variables. It could have nothing to do with game. If you have a PhD in a scientific field you should be primed to appreciate that truth.

    Here is a few good articles about being yourself for anyone interested

    1) Dare to be yourself http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/dare-be-yourself

    2) The art of non-conformity. http://chrisguillebeau.com/3×5/how-to-be-yourself/

  14. George says:

    Here is another good resource http://www.beyondroutines.com/

  15. Deansdale says:

    George, you know there is a basic problem with all your reasoning: you’re talking about something you know much less about than us. You’re like a failed student arguing with the professor about quantum physics saying it’s all BS because he can not see how things could work that way. I don’t want to sound dismissive but the arguments you try to invalidate our everday physical experiences with are purely philosophical, and thus are destined to fail.
    To be honest I’m not in the mood to construct elaborate answers to your nicely built but empty questions just to try to prove to you what I experience every day – an experience you are clearly bent on denying no matter what I (or anyone) tell you. It’s a fool’s errand and I have better things to do right now – I guess this is the better part of valor blogging :)
    Game is out there, take it or leave it.

    Yeah, and “angry religious plea”?
    “seduction does not exist”?????????
    Get real FFS… No actual human being can be this dense, can they?

  16. Deansdale says:

    Try to imagine all your arguments with the genders reversed.
    “There is no solid scientific proof that a short skirt is more attractive than a pair of loose jeans.”
    Well, duh, it’s a subject rarely researched with rigor. But it’s common knowledge that women do a lot of stuff to make themselves more attractive. What makes you think men can not make themselves more attractive?
    Eh… It’s tiring and fruitless to have an argument with people actively refusing to think about anything you say.

  17. George says:

    I hear ya, deansdale. I did not actually think you would be converted from your erroneous ways ;)

    People come to these conclusions – or not – on their own based on emotional incentives. Although logic can help someone see what is wrong with something, a disinterested love of truth is rarely the motivating factor. Even for me, game just felt wrong on a primal level, which gave me the emotional motivation to figure out precisely what my intuition was telling me and learn to articulate it. But for the man who does not find the idea that he must suit his personality to womens tastes distasteful on some primal level of his being, logic alone wont provide the incentive to search for the truth.

    I just wanted to point out that considered from a purely logical and scientific perspective, there is simply no evidence for the effectiveness of game – what you experience every day is not evidence. There are lots of religious people convinced they experience miracles every day.

    If you want to say that there is no evidence for game that meets reasonable standards but you choose to believe in it anyways, then that is perfectly cool – people adopt beliefs based on zero evidence all the time. But it is unfair to claim that there is ANY evidence that game works better than placebo (lots of what people believe is working is just the placebo effect). I have no problem with you believing that game is effective but it is a problem when you claim there is evidence for that belief. There is not.

    My second point is that even if it works 100%, it makes you weaker psychologically, so guys looking for something to help them become stronger men need to find ways to develop real backbone, part of which means to stop caring what women think. Learning to care what women think will just impede the growth of their masculinity. Its not a strong frame to be in, EVEN if game worked perfectly. Those are my two points.

    Anyways, cheers!

  18. George says:

    Deansdale, women REVEAL themselves with short skirts, they dont *make themselves more attractive*. That would require plastic surgery. Women just show what they got.

    BUT – I never said men cannot make themselves more PHYSICALLY attractive. They can, up to a point. They can lose weight, gain muscle, etc. There is no evidence that BEHAVIORS can *create attraction* in women.

    In fact, there is TONS of evidence that behaviors have NO IMPACT ON ATTRACTION. That you do not have access to the parts of the brain that process attraction. Scientific evidence that LOOKS count. Check out the link to the paper Roissy provides, at least the conclusions. Thats a good place to start. Read through seductionmyth.com, particularly the comments of Piotr. The issue is discussed at length.

  19. Deansdale says:

    Well, how about plastic surgery then? You just answered your own objection.

    I will write a post about this because it’s a huge subject.

  20. Deansdale says:

    George, what you say actually contradicts the very reality you and I live in, you are just too invested in your set of beliefs to realize this and let it go.
    If what you say would be true then ALL the best girls would go out with chippendale guys but they aren’t. In fact very few of them actually do. They are attracted to money, fame, status, and lots of other things. Your views are totally deterministic but also totally false.

  21. George says:

    Deansdale, that is a common fallacy, looks count not in the sense that you must be handsome, but in the sense that you must be *her type*. For instance girls who like Johnny Depp dont like Brad Pitt, and vice versa. My sister for instance does not like Depp but LOVES Pitt. She has *types*, like all girls. She admits that Depp is handsome she just is not into him. My oldest sister loves skinny nerdy types who are intellectual, and married one. She had suitors that were tall and handsome but she was not interested.

    So of course you will see girls with guys who look ugly to YOU, but dont look ugly to HER. Doesnt mean the dude did game.

    Some girls like pretty boys, some girls like burly bear-like men, etc. I go to mainstream clubs and to hipster bars a lot, and there is a HUGE difference in what kinds of guys the girls are into. The hipsters like rail-thin mildly effeminate types. Not so the mainstream clubs.

    See, its about genetic pairing and genotypes. Seductionmyth discusses this at length too.

    You are also CORRECT that women are attracted to wealth and status, but these are not personality attributes or behaviors. If you HAVE wealth, that will boost your odds. If you HAVE status, that will too. It will only INCREASE your odds, though. We actually see lots of wealthy guys with pretty average girls. Look at Zuckerbergs girl, for instance. But wealth and status are not behaviors.

    As for plastic surgery, again – PHYSICAL, not behaviors. Game is about behaviors. The human mating system is based primarily on LOOKS (not being handsome necessarily), and for women on wealth and resource access as well.

  22. Deansdale says:

    I’m pointing at the moon and you only see the finger. It’s absolutely no use talking to you because you religiously believe in your own (false) ideas and phase out everything else.
    1. There is science behind game, it is called evolutionary psychology. It describes why women find some mannerisms and body language attractive and others unattractive. I bet you believe it’s not “proper science”.
    2. With game we are in the phase where Newton was when he saw the apple falling. He recognized gravity but there were no scientific material written on the subject yet.
    You are the type of guy who argues with Newton that gravity does not exist because it is not scientifically proven. I’d laugh out loud if I wasn’t so tired :\

  23. George says:

    Gamers mis-understand and mis-use evolutionary psychology to claim it says things it never says. Read any good intor to evo-psyche and it will make clear that attraction is not a choice (a phrase ironically mis-used by the game community) and not amenable to changes in behavior, but dependent on physical/genetic qualities, as well as wealth and status. It will go into it in clear logical detail showing this. If you want a very brief summary with a clear explanation of how evo-psyche contradicts game and how gamers mis-appropriated the concepts to give their project a veneer of plausibility, read the comments of Piotr on seductionmyth.

    Look, roissy/heartiste mis-understands and abuses the scientific papers he reads all the time, often in the most basic and blatant ways, so its not exactly that uncommon for gamers to not understand the science they use, or to abuse it.

    Besides, it should be exceedingly easy to prove game – seductionmyth has a section on it and a challenge to game believers – it is telling that it has never been done.

  24. George says:

    And if game is in the early stages and is just a theory that certain behaviors work, as you say, then it is just a theory. We need to isolate variables to find out if it is correct. It might well be wrong. Currently, there is no evidence. Scientific studies continue to show that factors other than game matter (like the one linked to by roissy). In fact we now have many, many studies showing factors other than game matter. We still lack ANY studies that game is effective, despite a boom in evo-psyche studies. Anecdotal evidence are subject to cognitive biasses and self-delusion, and besides, they run in both directions; many men report no success with game, so they just are not sufficient.

    So even according to your own analogy with Newton all we have is a theory that might or might not be correct.

  25. Deansdale says:

    It seems you really ARE the type of guy who argues that gravity does not exist until it is proven in peer reviewed scientific journals. This is beyond ridiculous.

    You want objective, quantified and scientfiic proof on something subjective and unmeasurable.

    You write:
    “My sister for instance does not like Depp but LOVES Pitt.”
    Do you have scientific proof?
    This question is just as stupid as asking if I have proof that becoming more confident made me more attractive to my GF. Yep, I was there for the whole process, I witnessed every bit of change firsthand. I know what happened and I don’t give a ***** **** about “proof” or whatnot. And it is the same for Dalrock, Keoni Galt, and tons of other guys including many men I know personally.
    Sometimes reality is just that: reality, and it does not need any peer reviewed evidence to be real.
    If science does not validate reality then you should always side with reality.
    Also, evolutionary psychology DOES validate game but I will not get into that because this argument really is fruitless.

    Of course game won’t work 100%. NOTHING works all the time if the subject is human relations. But it works 80% of the time and that gives approximately 40 times better results than “traditional” dating advice because that works about 2% of the time. If you want to wait for a method that works 100% and is scientifically provable then good luck with that and GTFO. Don’t take it personally but I don’t actually like dense people that much.

    “Gamers mis-understand and mis-use evolutionary psychology to claim it says things it never says.”
    Or maybe it is you who misunderstand things. You can not be sure, but you seem to be. I admire your arrogance with which you try to shame the winners of a game of which you are a loser of. The sad thing is that your circular impotent philosophical trains of thought will get you nowhere while we “gamers” enjoy our lives in happy relationships.

    No stop being a pain in the arse and start using some common sense instead of your overworked rationalization hamster.

  26. George says:

    Let me try to be a bit clearer;

    You did game technique a,b, and c, and your relationship to your wife got better. But you also did behaviors x,y, and z, without being aware of what you were doing. You wrongly conclude game was responsible. Or this; you did game techniques a,b, and c for 2 months and nothing happened, but you persisted, got better at doing those techniques, then in the 3rd month your relationship got better. You conclude game works. What actually happened is that your wife had some issues she was dealing with that coincidentally cleared up in the 3rd month. You, however, conclude that game did not work the first 2 months because you were not yet *good* at it, and once you got *good* at it, it started working. Or this; you were being passive and not investing in the relationship, and then started to do game. You conclude game worked, when in fact it was just that your wife saw you suddenly take an interest in the relationship.

    This is just an example of just SOME of the cognitive biasses you might be dealing with. There are many, many more.

    Game would be exceedingly easy to prove. Contrary to your claim, it would not be difficult at all. Seductionmyth has a section explaining easily how it could be done (in the just prove it section).

    If improvements in YOUR life coincided with doing game but (theoretically) actually have nothing to do with game, you can be seriously hurting others by stating definitively and with confidence that it was game that helped you. Your claims are irresponsible, and have the potential to seriously hurt others. You should at least be clear that you merely THINK game works, but there is no evidence for that yet and that there is lots of scientific evidence that factors other than game are what matter, and that MANY men report being seriously fucked up through game – you owe that much to your fellow man and your readership. I know that I believed the assurances of game writers, only to be cruelly misled, and to regress as a person. Look at the commenter above who says he is seriously hurt and unhappy about the fact that game works – he is suffering psychological pain from a belief for which there is very flimsy evidence, even according to you, who admit that the evidence is wholly anecdotal and unscientific. Dont you think you owe it to be more measured and cautious in your comments on game, not just to spare others possibly needless psychic pain, but to be more in line with rationality and honesty as well? Lots of guys suffer serious psychic pain believing that they need to refashion themselves into uncaring assholes to be loved by women, and feel they are faced with an agonizing and traumatic choice, all over a belief for which there is at best slivers of anecdotal evidence with no way of knowing if this evidence is mediates through cognitive biasses or self-delusion And at the end of the day, isnt it a value to state our conclusions in line with the available evidence?

    More, since game is a weak mental frame to be in (doing things to be liked, rather than be your own man), I would say you owe it to yourself as a man to find out if you REALLY need to surrender your male autonomy in order to improve your relationship with your wife. (and yes, being cocky/funny when you are feeling sad or affectionate so that your wife will like you IS a surrender of autonomy, even if it is spun as being more masculine)

  27. Deansdale says:

    Well, no.
    I have read a lot about game, I understood its theoretical basis (mainly evopsych), and also understood WHY and HOW the “techniques” work in practice. And then I tried them and they worked just as I expected.
    There were no x, y and z behaviours and no 2 months lag. It goes something like this: you have a conversation with your woman, and she is visibly angry. You say “tree frog” but nothing changes. You say “game technique A” and she kneels down to kiss you where you like to be kissed.
    Now of course in reality it’s not that vulgar, but it really is this easy to observe.

    And now I consider this debate closed because you just keep coming back with theories trying to disprove my experiences, and this is now way past being boring. It’s like I’m back from a fishing trip with a 20 pound snapper which is in front of me on the table and you keep insisting over the internet that 20 pound snappers do not exist. There is no scientific proof! I went fishing and didn’t catch any! Oh come on.

    You cannot disprove reality. Get over it.

  28. George says:

    Its like thinking you need this special radiation treated gold and diamond coated fishing road to catch fish, and then go and use that rod and use that as proof that the only thing that works is a gold and diamond rod. In reality, all you needed was a rod. But your consistent mis-characterization of my position as claiming something did not happen, when all I claim is that the reason you think it happened is wrong, makes it plain that you are not ready, at this stage, to think clearly about game.

    But cheers, and good luck.

  29. Brendan says:

    It’s an interesting discussion, although a heated one.

    One question I would have for George is whether he thinks “status” can be tweaked/upped by use of Game techniques? It seems to me that one of the ideas behind Game is upping one’s perceived status in the eyes of the target (whether a pick-up, a GF or a wife). The issue comes down to how status is observed/determined by women, I think.

    In general, I would note that most people are going to go with their anecdotal experiences in terms of determining whether something “works” or not, for them. I tend to agree that Game lacks proof, and it does distort evo-psych at times, but at the same time most people follow various other unproven theories in their lives because they perceive that they work for them. As a result, I don’t think that the rationalist critique, while being perfectly valid, will be very influential over people who perceive that it works for them — whether that perception is rational or not. This is no different from the endless argumentation over diets, for example.

  30. Deansdale says:

    Diets are a good example, because some of them have valid science backing them up, only to be dimissed by pseudoscientific idiots. The paleo diet works. Game works. Those who say they don’t work simply do not understand the concepts behind them.

  31. George says:

    @ Brendan.

    First, studies have shown that women look for different things in long term and short term relationships. Status counts primarily for long-term relationships. For short term hook ups in a club, status (access to resources) does not make any difference at all. We also see many cases where women marry rich men only to be banging the pool guy on the side – for short term hook-ups, mens looks are pretty much the only thing that matters, as countless studies have shown.

    Now a man CAN fool a woman into thinking he is rich and high status (although not through behavior), but in a long term relationship such a deception would not last very long, so there seems little point. She would soon find out you are not rich and are not high status. And if it is casual sex she is looking for that you are rich and have status means nothing to her.

    There is a very interesting discussion of this, with citations of papers, on seductionmyth, especially the comments of Piotr. It is fascinating reading. The guy has a gift for clear exposition and is has expert command of evo-psyche theory and material.

    As for your point about anecdotal evidence, point taken. Very few men are really willing to be rigorous about their personal beliefs and adopt a high standard of evidence. Many men are – I am, for instance. I try to apply a high standard of evidence in all areas of my life. Part of growing up into a mature, intellectually responsible person is to understand that you, as a member of the human species, are susceptible to all sorts of cognitive biasses and motivations towards self-delusion, and to develop a high standard of evidence for belief. That most men never reach this stage of maturity and remain stuck at the stage of credulity is true, and sad. But we can all do better.

    But if one is willing to rely on personal anecdotal evidence, one has no choice but to at least admit the evidence against game as well as the limitations of personal anecdote. One must admit a) No scientific study has shown the validity of game despite it being easy to do so. Conversely, innumerable scientific studies have shown factors other than game are decisive, time and time again. b) Evolutionary psychology does not support the idea that attraction can be created through behavior. In fact, it flatly contradicts it. Now granted, evo-psyche is an emerging field, but game believers cannot cite current evo-psyche theory in its favor. c) Anecdotal evidence can be corrupted by cognitive biasses and self-delusion, and d) For every man that reports success with game, there is a man who reports that game failed miserably and has made him worse socially.

    If one is willing to admit all these things but state that he nevertheless chooses to believe in game based on personal anecdote , if one is willing to precisely describe and admit to the level of evidence one is basing ones belief on, then that is at least a much more responsible position to take than unequivocal claims that *game works*.

  32. George says:

    Actually, the paleo diet is another example of something that does not work and is unscientific, even though it fits with what most guys intuitively think SHOULD work.

    I know from experience – I bought into Paleo too, only for it to have zero impact on me. I gained weight eating Paleo and I have lost weight eating ice cream and pizza. I was in a unique position to test this in my personal life, and I could no longer ignore the obvious. It took me a very long time to finally admit what was obvious – I really WANTED paleo to work.

    Ever wonder why EVERY low-carb diet says you also have to limit your food intake? Its because ALL diets are just about restricting calories. Ever wonder why people in Thailand and Japan are rail thin yet eat a high-car, high-sugar diet (I know, I lived in both countries)?

    Living in Asia and seeing what my friends (and everyone else) ate made it impossible to ignore that Paleo is bogus. Observing my thin friends made it impossible. Observing myself made it impossible.

    But we humans are credulous, and prone to fads and gimmicks. We all want to believe we figured out some esoteric secret that no one else but us knows. I also dont see how you can say Paleo is hard to grasp – its principles are quite clear, and easily put into practice.

  33. Brendan says:

    Now a man CAN fool a woman into thinking he is rich and high status (although not through behavior), but in a long term relationship such a deception would not last very long, so there seems little point. She would soon find out you are not rich and are not high status.

    I guess the issue is what one means by “status”.

  34. Jehu says:

    Deansdale,
    I’m perfectly aware of why Game works in our society. Game works because we don’t have open and transparent status hierarchies in modern Western society. So to a great extent, you ARE whatever status level you can congruently present yourself as. Older societies had two things to control this—sumptuary laws, which made your ‘station’ in life explicitly clear, and the fact that other males would beat the snot out of you if you ‘presumed too much’—thereby women are more or less wired to assume that SUCCESSFUL presumption means you must be a serious bad ass and thereby worthy of their genetic material. Add to this the fact that getting someone to do you a favor makes them like you better and doing them a favor is often even a negative diplomatic action and you’ve got a deeply dysfunctional (from the perspective of a non-neurotypical like myself) situation. Yes, these things are ‘natural’, but any healthy society will take steps to keep them at least somewhat in check. Obviously we don’t live in a healthy society, although we tell so many noble lies to young men that presume that we do. I don’t intend to teach my children any such lies, but I don’t have to like the brute facts of unchained human nature.

  35. George says:

    @Brendan – status simply means access to resources. You either got it or you dont. Nothing really ambiguous about it.

    If you try to fool a woman looking for a long-term relationship that you have that, she wont have sex with you or enter into the relationship with you until she is reasonably sure you are the real thing (do you have the cars, do you have the house, do you have senators calling you, etc). She will date you and get to know you better (possibly banging guys based on looks in the meantime), and when the fiction crumbles – bye bye.

    @Jehu, I dont think you realize what status is. It has nothing to do with being a badass. It has to do with having access to resources. In todays society, it might be difficult for a woman AT FIRST to accurately tell your status, but if you lack the house, the car, the phone calls from senators, it will very quickly be obvious. And she is not gonna jump into bed with you based on first impressions if she is looking for a long term relationship with a man of status.

    And for a one night stand, it wont even matter anyways.

  36. Jehu says:

    Brendan,
    What you describe is status WAS status in a more sane and functional age. Society had all sorts of mechanisms built in to make the spoofing of status more difficult—like sumptuary laws and angry guys, dueling, etc to beat the snot out of anyone who was overly presumptous. Being a reactionary, I actually favor the return of most of those.

    However what you describe is not status in our present society, it’s just wealth. Status is how people appear to treat you. I know it is terribly fuzzy and not amenable to quantification, but that’s our society. If you successfully, in your view, spoof status, you actually have it. In a rational society you couldn’t be famous for being famous either.

  37. George says:

    In evo-psyche terms status is access to resources, that’s all. Studies have shown women looking for a long-term relationship value this. If you are “famous” but have not access to resources (famous for being the town drunk, say), you have no status in evo-psyche terms. If you can “spoof” being famous for the right reasons, a girl would give you, at best a chance to prove it rather than blow you out immediately. So by week 2 when she sees you are not actually famous, it all crumbles. To believe that evolution designed a race of women who can be easily spoofed in terms of a mans fitness indicators is to not understand evolution. Either way, none of this “creates attraction”, or matter in one-night stands.

  38. Deansdale says:

    “Dalrock acts cocky/funny so that his wife will like him even if he is not feeling cocky/funny.”
    Wrong. And all other mentions of cocky/funny: wrong. Game does not say you have to be cocky/funny.
    Each and every one of your assumptions about game is dead wrong.
    “Now a man CAN fool a woman into thinking he is rich and high status (although not through behavior)”
    This is foolishness. Game does not say you have to fool women. Game has nothing to do with pretending to be rich (or anything else for that matter). Game does not say you have to do anything you don’t want to.
    “Very few men are really willing to be rigorous about their personal beliefs and adopt a high standard of evidence. Many men are – I am, for instance.”
    Strange it is then that everything you think you know about game is actually anecdotal evidence – proven by your mistaken assumptions.
    What you fight against is a stupid caricature of game existing only in your head.
    That is why I said this debate is pointless, because you can’t let go of your wrong-headed beliefs.
    I’d say we should re-start this conversation when you have even the faintest idea what game really is, but I think TFH is right: 80% of men will never get what game is. It is strange, because it seems so easy for the rest of us, the 20%.
    But hey, what the heck, I’m such a nice guy, I’ll try to educate you anyway.

    The feminized zeitgeist says you have to fish with roses. It’s stupid.
    Then you come along and insist that the only important thing is looks – that if you are born with a nice fishing rod you’re set for life, and if you aren’t, you’re fucked.
    Then game comes along and says: hey, fuck all that. You can catch fish with tons of other methods, including but not limited to nets, sharpened sticks, artificial dams in shallow creeks, baskets, harpoons, whatever. Cocky/funny is a hand grenade. It sure does work – you can catch fish with it -, but you’re not forced to use it by any means.
    You insist that game is a hand grenade and it works only in very limited circumstances, if at all, but it’s just ignorance on your part. You insist that game is a hand grenade because you refuse to see game for what it actually is.
    Game is a collection of tools from which you can choose the tool appropriate for your mood, the circumstances, the type of woman you’re dealing with, etc. And you can choose a different tool the next second. You can use two or three tools at the same time, or you can choose to use none if that’s what you want. In some cases that works the best. You can even choose to use a rose as bait if that strikes your fancy. The point is you can have an almost unlimited number of tools.
    (You and your brother, and most of the failures you mention tried to solve all your problems with cocky/funny [and maybe negs]. It was a rookie mistake.)

    Now, let me state it again as clearly as I possibly can: you argue against an illusion. Game is not what you describe it to be. This debate is pointless until/unless we all understand what it is we’re arguing about.

    Also, we could argue about the paleo diet all day, because I write a dietary blog in my native language, and I know practically everything about fat storage, blood sugar, insulin, and every scientifically related subject (even the beta cells of the Langerhans islets of the pancreas for one stupid example), but I reckon this would also be pointless. You think you know everything about game when in fact you know almost nothing. Why should I think it’s different with diets?
    For example: “Ever wonder why EVERY low-carb diet says you also have to limit your food intake?” this is patently false. It could not be farther from the truth.

    You think I’m a fool because I believe in what you consider “superstition”. I know there are scientific facts behind my “beliefs”. If you refuse to look at them, it’s your loss.

  39. Deansdale says:

    “you, as a member of the human species, are susceptible to all sorts of cognitive biasses and motivations towards self-delusion”
    Your problem is you live in the illusion that you’re under no illusions because you’re kinda “sophisticated”.
    Talking about basic human misbeliefs, a very common one is to believe that one is “above” this or that crap. You are a prime example. You think you know what you’re talking about, and THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT KEEPS YOU FROM ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE. Maybe instead of “high standards” you should have a curious mind. Just sayin’.

  40. PT Barnum says:

    It’s more correct to say that PARTS OF GAME work. And parts are not.

    Let’s be honest here, Mystery fails to mention several blatantly blatant IOI in his book. Really big, obvious ones.

    He himself has failed on handling relationships, as are many gamers. His book doesn’t even talk about relationships. Why? Because he *bleeps* them up.

  41. Deansdale says:

    Mystery is not an LTR type of guy, that’s for sure. He needs much more drama than your average guy. I never liked his approach to game that much anyways. Don’t make the mistake of equating game with the Mystery Method.

    I think Keoni & Athol Kay deliver the best LTR game advice out there.

  42. Jehu says:

    George,
    Plenty of people who have massive access to resources have fairly low status with respect to the opposite sex, at least in present day western societies. What you’re missing is that women aren’t wired/evolved in general to be directly attracted to ‘access to resources’. What they’re attracted to are the CORRELATES of ‘access to resources’. It’s the sizzle, not the steak that generates the attraction in their hindbrain. You seem to want people to make rational sense. I used to think that they made sense also, probably until I was 25. Afterwards I resolved to simply deal with them as they are, since I’ve no reasonable expectation that I can change their behavior. Guess what—we’re extremely far from the environment of most of our ancestors. Even a guy on welfare & section 8 has resources unavailable to kings even 100 years ago. Expecting a woman’s hindbrain to be able to keep track of the realities of status and tingle for them accurately is crazy—even the punctuated equilibrium types don’t normally think behavior could evolve that fast. Instead women key on the correlates. What are the correlates? How you behave and present yourself, and how their peers evaluate you. That’s the key element of ‘game’. Ben Franklin could’ve taught that to you back in the 1700s, and I’m dead certain Solomon could have too back in BC.

  43. One way of testing the value of Game, which might address George’s complaints, is to try using it and then not using it with the same woman. Sometimes, you can see her reactions change in moments. As I said, it can be like clockwork.

    This is what experimentalists call an internal control.

    A lot of Game is simply keeping cool. Yesterday my wife was very upset because our daughter and I had drained a bank account, partly to pay for her driving lessons. I let her rant a bit, kept cool, did not bicker with her. Very soon, she came to me with a cup of tea and an apology.

    Sometimes I think the ONLY thing women really care about is your attitude.

  44. George says:

    @Jehu

    What you are not quite getting is that status does not *create* attraction. Rather, it is a trade-off. Women are willing to sacrifice some amount of attraction in order to gain access to resources in an LTR. That is why *status* has no relevance for one night stands. Women are attracted to neither status nor the correlates of status. But they are willing to trade attraction for it in the right circumstances.

    I dont see how you say that I want people to be rational in what they are attracted to when my whole point is that human attraction takes place on a pre-rational level (and is actually better adapted to our ancestral past than to current conditions). Rather, I want theories of what women are attracted to to be rational, in that they accord with the scientific evidence. It is gamers who construct theories of what women are attracted based on wishful thinking, and who disregard (or distort) the conclusions of evo-psyche as well as the mountain of scientific studies we have today, which clearly indicate that your genotype determines what kind of women are attracted to you. In fact, based on the studies we already have today, there is no longer any doubt that women are attracted to based on looks (not handsomeness but genotype). That is actually no longer in dispute. The study that roissy/heartiste linked to on his blog recently (as well as countless others) makes that clear. Gamers wish to assert that in the absence of genotypical attraction, a man can create such attraction through behavior. That contradicts evo-psyche theories and there is no evidence that this is the case.

    By the way, I dont think you really get how evolution works. Evolution selects for genes that confer a survival advantage. Women who were attracted to correlates of status that can be faked by men would fail to leave offspring behind (since the men did not actually have the resources needed to raise the child), and thus the genes that made that woman attracted to fake-able correlates of status would be weeded out.

    @David Collard

    That would not be methodologically sound. Seductionmyth.com has a good explanation of what would be a good test of game. Its quite easy to do.

  45. George says:

    @David Collars

    The example of your wife has nothing to do with creating attraction, which is the central contention of game.

  46. George says:

    @Deansdale, I never said game says you should do things that you do not want to do. Game merely says that you can create attraction through behavior, and describes what that behavior is. Of course you can choose to do it or not.

    The PRACTICE of game involves doing behaviors that do not come naturally to you, that are not what you would do if you left to freely express your emotional/mental state. If you do these behaviors naturally, you are a *natural*, not a gamer. Game is the learned display of these behaviors.

    Dalrock quite clearly explains that he does cocky-funny even when that does not represent his internal mood, so that his wife will like him. What else is there to say? To me, that is cowardice.

  47. Deansdale says:

    “I never said game says you should do things that you do not want to do”
    How about this then?
    “Dalrock acts cocky/funny so that his wife will like him even if he is not feeling cocky/funny.”
    You imply that he does not want to act cocky/funny but he still does because he “must” according to game theories. And it’s not about him, it’s about the principle. What you imply is about game, not about him.
    I don’t act cocky/funny when I don’t want to. I still use game and think it works. How about that?
    Oh, nevermind, I know you’ll come up with the usual stuff: there are other factors or whatever.

    “The PRACTICE of game involves doing behaviors that do not come naturally to you, that are not what you would do if you left to freely express your emotional/mental state. If you do these behaviors naturally, you are a *natural*, not a gamer. Game is the learned display of these behaviors.”
    Well, this is more-or-less right. But what are you trying to say? Learning to behave in new ways is bad? Learning to behave efficiently is bad? Learning how to reach your goals is bad?
    When you were born nothing came naturally to you, not walking, eating, anything. What you say is that you could or should learn anything in life EXCEPT GAME, because that mustn’t be learnt. I cannot fathom why you think like this.

    You still don’t understand the framework of game though.

  48. George says:

    What I am saying is that learning to mis-represent yourself is bad. Learning to behave in new ways is not intrinsically bad, but it can be, if you are learning to mis-represent yourself. Some things are not worth learning – learning to be liked by women is not worth learning. Learning to be your authentic self – an arduous task taking courage – IS worth learning. So just because something is a skill that can make you better at something (supposing this were true) does not mean you are improving yourself. If you learn, say, the skills of sycophancy, you are regressing as a human being, yet it is quite a subtle skill, and makes you quite efficient. This idea that all acquisition of skill and ability is a gain is simply not true. A slave may learn to better please his master, yet perhaps that is a skill not worth learning.

    You may not do cocky-funny, but you do SOMETHING that does not come naturally to you in order to be liked by women. That is what game is. You admit that much, right?

    So you are a Blank Slater? I did not think so. Fact is, we are all born with our peculiar emotional and mental dispositions. There is reams of evidence to back this up. Our personalities are heritable and genetic. To fake that in order to be liked is the kind of learning of a new behavior that I am opposed to. Now the fact is many of us have been raised to deny our intrinsic selves in an effort to be liked, as I mentioned above. Game pretends it is about re-connecting with your masculine self that you have been taught to deny – which would be a laudable goal – but the problem is, this is double-speak. Game is about what women like. If women like macho, you have to be macho. If women like aloof, you have to be aloof (or WHATEVER behavior). If I am feeling tender, gentle, and loving, but disguise this from my wife because I fear her reaction, I am less of a man, not more, I have connected less with my authentic masculine self, not more.

    Game cleverly co-opted a mans natural desire to re-connect with his masculine self in order to sell him a sophisticated ego-destroying poison of learning to mis-represent himself to be liked. It was a mere ruse, a lure. It is obvious that you cannot become more masculine by learning to be a sophisticated woman-pleaser, just as you cannot draw a round square.

    All serious books on self-esteem recognize that one becomes stronger by being authentic (they also recognize that this takes daring), and learning to be more and more yourself. Trying to be a woman-pleaser destroys your self-esteem and retards your psychological growth.

    Heres a nice link about being authentic http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/authenticself.htm

  49. Jehu says:

    George,
    Pretty much any man alive in the Western countries has the resources necessary to raise children. What you’re not getting is that the particular resources needed have varied a lot over human history. Some periods favor capability at hunting or farming. Others favored a glib tongue. Getting hot for the correlates of resource access (i.e., how people act and present themselves when they’re considered high status) is actually a better evolutionary strategy. As to spoofing the status correlates, well, more rational societies had solutions for that—cue sumptuary laws, duels, beating down those who ‘presume too much’, etc. And high status guys DO get lots of one-night stands and short term relationships. Even guys like Henry Kissenger and Ben Franklin.

  50. George says:

    And high status guys DO get lots of one-night stands and short term relationships. Even guys like Henry Kissenger and Ben Franklin.

    I never said high status guys dont. Some high status guys obviously do. I merely said high status does not create sexual attraction.

    Look, study after study has shown that women pursue a different strategy for one night stands and for LTRs, and that status does not help for one night stands. I am not aware of a single evo-psyche writer who denies this well known fact.

    In the evolutionary environment that shaped our brains, who had and who did not have access to resources was perfectly obvious. We lived in small hunter/gatherer bands. There was no guesswork involved. There was no reason for women to evolve the ability to become hot for correlates of status when the real thing was readily observable. Having the ability to detect correlates would have conferred no survival advantage. It would be an unnecessary detour. Those women who became attracted to easily faked proxies for status would have been weeded out.

    If society punished presumption of status, then women would have no need to evolve the ability to get hot for behavioral proxies of status. Status would be clear and obvious and readily observable. If status indicators were NOT obvious and readily observable, then women would have evolved a very tough screening method, not something easily faked. Those who did not would have been weeded out. The idea that women could have evolved to be sexually attracted to something as easily faked as a behavior is simply to not understand the rigors of natural selection.

    As you correct note also, status differs for age to age and society to society, yet we see that women always go after the high status men of their own time and place. How is this? This militates against the idea that women evolved to be attracted any specific correlates of status, as men of different types have been high status in different societies. This is congruent with the fact that in our evolutionary environment access to resources was obvious and learning to detect proxies for status would have conferred no advantage. That is why no specific indicator of status *crystallized* and women have the flexibility to negotiate the specific status structure of the society they find themselves in. So your own point militates against game.

    Game says that dominating women is what makes them sexually attracted to you, and supposedly being dominant towards women is a correlate of high status. Yet all men historically have been dominant towards women (in fact upper class women probably had even more freedom). Hardly an indicator of status.

    Anyways, read the science of it.

  51. thesecond says:

    “Look, study after study has shown that women pursue a different strategy for one night stands and for LTRs, and that status does not help for one night stands. I am not aware of a single evo-psyche writer who denies this well known fact.”

    “Study after study”
    “Not a single evo-psyche denies this well known fact.”

    Those are incredibly bold statements. And they sound quite hard to prove. Status is generally difficult to evaluate, and people have trouble distinguishing between status and aspects of physical attractiveness, like height. Could you cite several authors and studies proving that?

    http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC10220/visper05.html

    “Yet all men historically have been dominant towards women (in fact upper class women probably had even more freedom). Hardly an indicator of status.”

    That’s a very bold statement. It’s not one I’d say agrees with my personal experience. When I’ve visited less advanced societies the men were very often submissive, and not especially dominant on average. Their partners often dominated them, or led a lot. Do you have a cite for that, that through most of history or recent history (when we had good written records) men were generally dominant over women?

  52. I think I have said before that Game does not mean dishonesty. It means emphasising your better natural behaviours. I think your mind is simply made up, George. On the other hand it has worked for me. So I am hardly going to stop doing something that works while other people quibble about the theory.

  53. thesecond says:

    “What I am saying is that learning to mis-represent yourself is bad. Learning to behave in new ways is not intrinsically bad, but it can be, if you are learning to mis-represent yourself. Some things are not worth learning – learning to be liked by women is not worth learning. Learning to be your authentic self – an arduous task taking courage – IS worth learning. So just because something is a skill that can make you better at something (supposing this were true) does not mean you are improving yourself. If you learn, say, the skills of sycophancy, you are regressing as a human being, yet it is quite a subtle skill, and makes you quite efficient. This idea that all acquisition of skill and ability is a gain is simply not true. A slave may learn to better please his master, yet perhaps that is a skill not worth learning. ”

    http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/congruence-test/

    Pick up artists are ahead of you on this.

    Also, could you cite a study or a historian who says that a slave learning to please their master was not a good idea or helpful in their day to day life? I’d have imagined that trying to please their master would be extremely helpful, given that their master could throw them in a world of pain at a word, a situation many men are in today with presumed guilt upon a woman making rape accusations.

    “It is obvious that you cannot become more masculine by learning to be a sophisticated woman-pleaser, just as you cannot draw a round square.”

    So you define what it is to be a man? A major part of being masculine is our logical, rule driven minds. This has been a common theme of masculinity for millennia. Aristotle saw man as the rational animal and woman as more base and animal and driven by emotions. A major part of being male is using logic to learn rules to deal with the world, and women.

    “All serious books on self-esteem recognize that one becomes stronger by being authentic (they also recognize that this takes daring), and learning to be more and more yourself. Trying to be a woman-pleaser destroys your self-esteem and retards your psychological growth.”

    Could you cite a study for this? That trying to please women destroys your self esteem and retards your psychological growth. As you noted, science is important and you shouldn’t make blank assertions without facts.

    Plus, many very important novels about male female relationships suggest you learn unnatural routines to improve your interactions. Men are from mars, women are from Venus say. They suggest that men should be silent when a woman is talking, nodding and saying ‘mm yeah i agree’ rather than offering solutions and trying to be mr fixit. I and many other men (given reviews) have done this unnatural mental contortion, this stressful mental contortion, and found it enhances my self esteem and psychological growth because I have less fights with women and get more lovin done. How does that square with your comments?

  54. JP says:

    The more I read these anti-gamers the more they sound like those girls who get pissed off when they find out some guy is learning game and they respond with ”Oh, but you should just be yourself and wait to meet the person who is supposed to be your soulmate!”

    Then they do a bunch of mental gymnastics in order to convince themselves that game either doesn’t work because it doesn’t actually exist, or that it is not worth learning because it is degrading to change yourself specifically because you want to obatin a desired outcome.

    A lot of what they say also seems to have similarities to people who say martial arts doesn’t work because in a fight you won’t have time to react and respond with a pop up double scissor kick. The point of martial arts is to make you tougher and instill an indominatible spirit so that you keep fighting and learn to think on your feet. Have I lost a fight before despite knowing martial arts? Yes, but I was still standing under my own power without any bruises or bleeding at the end. Its not about never falling down, its about being brave enough to get back up.

    The routines in game are meant to work as training wheels. Eventually you will have to learn to think on your feet.

    My guess is that most of these anti-gamers are nerds who can’t understand nuance as Ferd would say. They were probably really book smart growing up and always had praise showered upon them for always being able to answer questions and solve math problems. Then all of a sudden they are in the situation of being attracted to girls, but finding that they are not only unable to generate attraction in them, but they are unable to figure out how to do so. Why? Because all their lives these smart kids followed the lessons of mainstream authority figures, they followed the theorems and equations dictated to them, and at the end they would solve the problem and get validation for being smart.

    And thats part of why they fail with game. They approach women as a problem to be solved in one way and only one way. They don’t want to accept that game works because the minute do they will realize that it was up to them whether to be successful with women or not. Game has many other benefits such as making you more assertive, more persuasive, and able to sift through the bullshit, and bullshit with the best of them. I know that reading about and practicing game has made me more successful and happier in my life, but no one will probably believe me because I didn’t isolate the game variable. Woe is me.

    Of course georgie boy will probably say all this is bullshit because I haven’t supplied any hard scientific evidence demonstrating that game works.

    The real question anti-gamers should be asking themselves is whether embracing anti-game has gotten them what they wanted? And if anti-game has gotten you what you want, can you be content in knowing you have something that works even if nobody else believes you?

    The main difference I see on the blogs between game and anti-game is that the game blogs write their postings with a sense of self confidence. They seem more open to new ideas about what might work and why and are willing to share what they have learned with others, and they don’t care if the majority believes they are full of shit.

    Anti-gamers seem more obsessed with getting all gamers to believe that what has been working for them not only doesn’t work but doesn’t even exist.

    I think one of the reasons gamers are trying to reach out to anti-gamers is because we see a little bit of our past wuss selves in you and want to help you. But it is clear you have already made up your mind.

    To the people on the fence who have not tried game, give it a shot and see how it works for you. But just understand that learning game is very different from learning other things you have learned that had a linear structure. An integral part of game is un-learning several things you have been taught to be true. The biggest lie you have been told is that you can’t generate more attraction for yourself in someone else.

    To the gamers, I say we stop wasting any energy on the anti-gamers. Just ignore them. Don’t acknowledge their existence, don’t respond, do not engage. Treat them the way you would some fat ugly chick at a club. They are invisible and beneath yor notice. The irony is that doing this will probably make them screech even louder for our attention, much in the same way a girl reacts when you ignore her.

    And georgie boy, don’t expect me to respond. I’ve said all I will.

  55. Kirk says:

    George,

    No scientific evidence that women are attracted to certain behaviors? Google “Dark Triad”.

    Also this:
    “And if it is casual sex she is looking for that you are rich and have status means nothing to her.”

    If that were the case, ugly rockstars like Mick Jager wouldn’t be getting constant tail.

  56. George says:

    he real question anti-gamers should be asking themselves is whether embracing anti-game has gotten them what they wanted? And if anti-game has gotten you what you want, can you be content in knowing you have something that works even if nobody else believes you?

    Absolutely. I built genuine self-esteem. I became authentic. It was hard work, but I am a strong person these days. I no longer live in fear of whether women think I am *alpha* like I did when I was into game. My love life has gotten a million times better as I filter out those women who are not worth my time. It feels just so damn good to no longer beg women for sex. I have become my own man.

    When I was into game I was a wreck of a man. There was nothing solid or strong about me. I simply did whatever women liked. I was a complete phony and fake. I was constantly trying to impress women. If a woman did not like me, I felt I had to change something about myself. Obviously, as women sensed quite well that I was not being authentic, I got fewer and worse women, too.

    You see, I dont blame you guys – I fell for game too. But I woke up. Some spark of pride inside me rebelled and made me look for the truth. I was not content with facile answers. Now I feel I have a moral responsibility to help other guys wake up too.

    You see, game does not work for anyone. Guys who think it works for them are deluded. Being fake hurts a persons self-esteem. Thats an inescapable fact. No guy becomes a stronger man by learning to fake himself. Gamers bully guys into faking themselves with the threat that women will not like them. Guys need to know that this is a bullshit claim. There is nothing that women like more than a man who has the courage to be his authentic self. Such a man exudes strength. Guys also need to learn that there are values more important than female approval.

    When I began to see what was wrong with game I searched for other people who saw what I saw, but could not find them. I was devastated. I thought I was going insane – it seemed so obvious to me that game was supplication, and I could not understand how so many intelligent people failed to see something so obvious. I could not understand how so many men seemingly interested in becoming stronger seemed to think strength consisted in learning to get the approval of women. When I finally found highly intelligent people who saw what I saw it was an incredible relief. It meant a lot to me to see that I was not insane. I now realize that the game community is just a mass hypnosis movement. If you question it, you will get shouted down. I am now doing my small part to give guys who realize what is wrong with game the courage to come out – they need to know there are other men who see what they see, and they are not crazy. Game really is supplication.

    So to those guys who realize on some level of their being what game is, take heart. There are others who see what you see. You are not alone. Dare to be rational! See how gamers refuse to question their position in a rational manner. See how JP says anyone who questions game should be ignored and shouted down. See how they ridicule your requests for rational proof and ignore your requests to show you how game is not supplication. It is a confidence trick – dont fall for it! It works by shutting down your mind, stopping you from thinking, stopping you from questioning, ridiculing you for asking for evidence. It works by bullying – dont allow yourself to be bullied! Dare to be honest! Dare to be see what is obvious about game!

  57. George says:

    @Kirk

    Yeah, I know all about the dark triad. Do you understand the concept of correlation? Guys who have dark triad qualities hook up with more women, but no studies have shown that women are attracted to those qualities. The correlation exists because such guys are narcissistic and impervious to rejection – they have no problem approaching a gazillion girls and getting blown out by 99% of them. One of the surest ways to bed more women is to approach more women. Rejections just fall off their back. They dont give a shit. Such guys also are not interested in commitment and are thrill seeking – they want as many partners as they can.

    None of those studies actually talk about attraction – they just talk about the fact that dark triad guys hook up with more women. They also dont correct for looks – it could be good looking guys in high demand by women develop narcissistic personalities.

    If you are satisfied with un-rigorous and facile answers then dont look too deeply into these studies. All studies that *prove game* depend on facile mis-interpretations.

    As for Mick Jagger, you dont get it about looks – its not about being handsome, its about being her type. I see guys who I think are ugly hooking up with chics all the time, because they are her type. Plus girls who are not sexually attracted to famous guys will sleep with them for the *thrill* and the boost to their reps.

  58. George says:

    I also think a Dark Triad guy is more likely to be his authentic self and not give a shit what others think (narcissism) then learn to fake his emotions and state of mind to win the approval of women. I seriously doubt a Dark Triad kind of guy is going learn to stand at 45% degree angles and make a comment over his shoulder, as Roissy says you should do, or that he will act cocky-funny when he isnt feeling that, as Dalrock says you should do, or make an effort to talk for 10-20 minutes straight and entertain the girl, as Roosh says you should do.

    I rather think a thrill seeking, narcissistic guy is going walk up fearlessly to the girl and say exactly what is on his mind, whatever that is. If the girls does not hook, he will move on to the next. He has ego. He is not a pussy begger.

    Game is about as far from Dark Triad as it is possible to be. Game is a collection of beta attitudes and states of mind, designed by timid beta men to hide their true intentions, in an effort to convince others they are not beta. Being hopelessly beta they have no clue what a non-beta acts and thinks like. They dont get that the most beta thing in the world is to care what others think about you.

  59. Kirk says:

    George,

    Thanks for the breakdown of the dark triad research. I understand that correlation does not equal causation. I guess I didn’t turn a critical eye to the literature.

    “Plus girls who are not sexually attracted to famous guys will sleep with them for the *thrill* and the boost to their reps.”

    Ergo, high social status is a predictor of short-term mating success.
    You suggested that it is an unreliable predictor:

    “And if it is casual sex she is looking for that you are rich and have status means nothing to her.”

  60. George says:

    No, I was saying that having high status does not create sexual attraction in women. Girls who sleep with Mick Jagger so they can brag to their friends are not into him sexually, they just do it for the bragging rights (and lots of girls wont do it). Some guys would sleep with an ugly female celeb just so they can brag to their buddies that they banged female celeb xxxx. I personally know guys who would do that – does not mean they think these chics are hot. Its just a funny/cool thing to do for some people, girls and guys.

    So if you can get into that .001% of the population where members of the opposite sex might want to sleep with you just for bragging rights even though they are not sexually attracted to you, there will be a sub-set of women who will do that with you.

    But the kind of ordinary *high status* that most guys can *convey* in a normal bar and club – stuff like expensive cars and clothing, or acting all aloof and arrogant – will have very little impact on his chances for a one night sand.

  61. Kirk says:

    George,
    Thanks for clarifying the fame bit. One more thing:
    You mentioned that women are attracted to certain types. Would you agree that women (as a whole) tend to find some types more attractive than others? For example, nerdy STEM types seem to have a harder time attracting women than suave bartenders.

  62. George says:

    To a degree, yes. Certain male types are just more attractive than other male types, but the thing about nerdy STEM types is that they put no effort into looking good at all. If a nerdy STEM type made an effort to look the best he could, some girls would be attracted to him even if were still thin and un-masculine. I would define a nerd as someone too timid to make any effort to enhance his physical appearance at all. And perhaps enhance is the wrong word, I mean display what he naturally has in the best light by wearing flattering clothing, getting haircuts that display his facial symmetry, etc. But aside from types, certain male characteristics are all around more attractive, like the V-taper body shape, the right degree of muscularity, and facial symmetry. But as we see from hot women dating ugly men, women really do have the widest variety of types, and practice assortative mating. And I actually see nerdy types that dress well and are happy with themselves getting girls all the time. There is a sub-set of girls that prefer this type to macho types. Heck, hipster bars would not exist if all girls liked jocks. I went through periods of my life where I worked out and was a tough guy, and other periods where I was rail thin and a sweet and nice guy and it made no difference – I got girls in both stages, different girls to be sure, but cute girls who were into both types.

    As long as you dress decent in a style that you like and make some effort to look good, you will find your niche. No guy can get any girl he likes – my sis for instance loves loves loves Brad Pitt yet is absolutely blah about Johnny Depp, yet other girls go nuts for Johnny Depp and are blah for Brad Pitt. Its just a question of types. Some guys of course have a higher success rates, but even the best looking guys have success rates of about 10 precent at best. At the end of the day its a numbers game for all us men with only a small degree of variation within this number game. The best you can do is look your best and be comfortable with who you are, and find the girls that are attracted to you. Anything more would be pussy begging ;)

  63. George says:

    As for suave, suave just means being comfortable with who you are – it has nothing to do with being alpha, dominating, and all that game bullshit. It just means a guy who accepts himself for who is and expresses that, so he comes off congruent. If you are a nice guy, be nice. If you are a talkative guy, be talkative. If you are silent type, be silent. Suave just means congruent and smooth, and smooth comes from exhibiting what is inside you to the outside world, there is no disconnect between your emotional state and how you are acting. Its quite liberating.

    And suave wont make women sexually attracted to you, but it will make her comfortable acting on that sexual attraction because you did not freak her out trying to be all macho or dominating or incongruent.

  64. Kirk says:

    George,

    Your arguments make sense, but I am reluctant to embrace them as they contradict my experience.

    I spent the first 23 years of my life with no female attention whatsoever. I am quite physically attractive (or so other guys have told me): I have good facial structure, I am in shape (I have that athletic buid that women are supposed to like), and I know a thing or two about fashion. Also, I am not timid, awkward, or “nerdy”. Still, despite my best efforts, I could not even get a girl (ugly or hot) to look me in the eye, much less show interest in me. Hell, even in my university’s 87% female psychology department, I was invisible. I figured that I was an alien who was nobodys’ “type”. However, that all changed when I discovered the Gameosphere. After 3 months of negging, cocky banter, and copious amounts of kino, I snagged my first phone number (after numerous failed attempts in the past). After 7 months of game, I lost my virginity to an attractive girl. After a year on the red pill, I entered into my first relationship where I now happily remain.

    Maybe it wasn’t the game. Maybe it was God finally deciding to take his foot off of my head.
    But one thing remains: when I learned game, the girls came.

    “Heck, hipster bars would not exist if all girls liked jocks.”

    I frequent these bars and they’re nothing but sausage fests.

  65. George says:

    Game has some effect for some guys as placebo (at the price of many damaging effects, but I will get to that in a moment) – in other words it gets them to approach girls, and so they get more girls. Tell me, before you got game, how much did you approach? After game, how much did you approach? None of those chics liked you because of game (in fact they merely tolerated your weirdness), you just approached more and so were statistically more likely to run into your type. I GUARANTEE you you were not approaching more before game just from your comments alone where you say you felt you were invisible to girls.

    It goes something like this – you approach 10 girls with tactic x, nothing happens. You approach 10 girls with tactic y nothing happens. And so on until finally tactic z *work*s – and you say ah, game works! In reality, you could have gotten that last girl without that tactic, but because you ran into your type while doing tactics you assume the tactic was responsible. Do you see the nifty little cognitive bias here? This is why I saw we need scientific experiments – because I have seen first-hand how guys lie to themselves and delude themselves or are just plain not aware of all the factors involved. I lived with gamers, and have SEEN them report that they got a girl with *ease* after they started game, when in fact they just approached a ton more but were incentivized to eliminate that from their minds as an explanation.

    So why not go do an experiment? Go approach girls at the same rate you are now, without negging – dont do a single neg- without being cokky/funny, just being what you feel, no game tactics whatsoever, just the same level of approach and the same sociability, and I guarantee you you will get slightly MORE girls. Game is right now turning off some of the girls who are into you.

    I have seen this happen with guys where they think they are gaming girls but are just approaching more. I have friends who swear by game but they have eliminated from their conscious minds all the rejections and all the increased approaches. I lived for a few months with a game guru in NYC (who actually got some good looking girls) and had a chance to see both him and his many pupils. It was a numbers game for both of them. The guru was not able to get a single girl on demand – it was always a process of approaching as many as he could until finally one *clicked*. NO ONE escapes the numbers game.

    Now you say well if it is placebo, why not do it anyways if it works? Well, because game fucks you up in the head and instils all sorts of damaging beliefs and weird behaviors in you, and makes you weaker as a man. It hurts your self-esteem by teaching you to over-value female approval of you makes you into a jellyfish who just does what women likes. It makes you have no back bone. It also makes you lose some of the girls who were into your type because she is thinking *I like him, but why is he trying so hard to impress me by being cocky and funny and putting me down? Cant he see I already like him?*

  66. George says:

    seductionmyth.com has a nice little section on *how come I saw game work?*

    You should check it out.

  67. Kirk says:

    George,

    To answer your question about approaching, I actually approached MORE before I learned game (notice my quote about numerous failed attempts at number closing). After learning game, I became very aloof and approached less. I used game on the few girls that I did approach. What I noticed was that girls at school who had never given me a second look became flirtateous with me. Even my current girlfriend recently told me that she never found me attractive until I started the whole alpha thing (me and her are assistants in my professor’s lab). When I said I was invisible, I was referring to the fact that girls used to blatantly ignore me when I tried to open them or make eye contact with them.

    Another instance where game seemingly worked for me:

    I ran into a cute latina chick at a friend’s Halloween party, who I had previously met. In the past, she was very rude to me and showed no signs of interest (would give me mean scowls when we made eye contact, would give me one word responses, etc.). I was feeling pretty confident that night, so I opened her with a neg about her dorky costume. Instead of giving me that startling stare, she lit up and laughed. I continued with some cocky banter and well placed kino. She seemed to especially fall for the kino, as she made an effort to playfully grab me whenever we bumped into each other during the party. By the end of the night, we were making out in my friend’s closet.

    My dating success could be one big coincidence. Still, I find it kind of odd that it took me 23 years to find a single girl who considered me her “type”, despite countless approaches. I also find it strange that multiple women suddenly found me to be their “type” simultaneously. Maybe that’s the way the world works.

    As for game being harmful, I am currently very pleased with my life since I started gaming and have not had anyone malign me as a “weirdo”. Moreover, I have more friends than ever, along with a wonderful partner. All in all, I’ve never been better.

  68. George says:

    Also, I am not timid, awkward, or “nerdy”.

    Now look at the statement that immediately follows this.

    Still, despite my best efforts, I could not even get a girl (ugly or hot) to look me in the eye, much less show interest in me. Hell, even in my university’s 87% female psychology department, I was invisible. I figured that I was an alien who was nobodys’ “type”

    Do you see perhaps the slight contradiction here? Guys who are not timid or awkward do not think the way you describe in the second quote. How do you know you were not being timid and awkward and putting out all sorts of off putting vibes? What do we have to go on? Your self-report of your own personality? Do I really need to get into how liable that is to distortion? Maybe you were not generally a timid guy but became timid every time you were around a really pretty girl that you liked but your mind is filtering out that fact leaving you with the impression that you are not an timid guy? Maybe you are not awkward around your male buddies and around girls you dont really care about but become awkward around girls you really do like but your fragile self image will allow you to admit that to yourself?

    I have seen a ton of people do game and say the same things you say, but would really be suffering from a ton of cognitive biasses. They would swear game worked for them in these specific ways with specific stories like yours, but I was there and saw that they were just filtering out all sorts of other factors because they wanted to attribute their success to game and painting their situation as far more rosy than it actually was. Sometimes the mental blinders were astonishing. Heck, I was one of those guys ;) I have known quite a few gamers who talk like you but who are engaged in an elaborate self-delusion, so I have become quite skeptical about these claims. I am not saying they lie deliberately, it is just that their minds filter out relevant data. It happens in science all the time, too – certain field anthropologists simply filter out things they dont want to see. That is why we need controlled experiments with objective observers.

    I will tell you straight out – I do not believe your stories happened the way you say they do. I have seen too many gamers game, I have seen so called pros game, and things have never happened that way. I have never seen a case where a girl was not into a guy and gave him a hostile reaction begin to like him as a result of something so trivial and pointless as a neg! That alone to me suggests that you are knee deep in some serious self-delusion. In fact, you are making claims on behalf of game that these days few gamers still make because they have been so widely discredited. Very few gamers will say game has the kind of instantaneous powers you are ascribing to it.

    I have seen too much of game talk to believe that things played out nearly in the nice smooth elegant way you are describing and am quite sure there are all sorts of factors you are leaving out but lets assume for a moment things happened just as you say, and lets parse what happened, okay?

    Consider this scenario.

    This Latina chic was always into you, but before game, you thought of yourself as someone unattractive, and this made you resentful and hostile and lacking in confidence around women. So even as you sought eye contact with her you gave off a hostile vibe or a needy vive that made her think you disliked her. So she reciprocated.

    Now post game you think you have what it takes to get her so some of that hostility and resentment and nervousness is gone and you can talk to her in a more normal way. She thinks hey this guy likes is and is being more normal now, cool! Sure, he is still a bit weird in his actions but at least he is more normal now.

    You think game is what made her attracted to you, but she liked you all along, you were just self-sabotaging. Game helped you remove one layer of self-sabotaging behavior, but at the cost of instilling in you all sorts of other self-sabotaging behaviors which we will get to in a moment.

    So game was just a placebo in that it helped you talk to her in a more normal and less off putting way, but you are convinced game is what created the attraction.

    Had you simply become a more self accepting and confident person and approached her normally you could have made this girl feel comfortable on acting on her attraction, without having to do game bullshit.

    Now, for guys who are coming from an extremely low self-confidence base game does have the capacity to effect a minute improvement in confidence that might remove some of the off putting behavior that makes girls who already like him feel comfortable being around him – but it comes at a massive cost, and for most guys who come from a normal self confidence base game actually lowers confidence. And the cost is totally pointless because you can become more confident much more easily and much more powerfully by learning self-acceptance and how to assert your personality without faking it.

    So, this extreme low self-confidence guy who does game gets a bit more confident from the placebo effect of thinking that he now has the tools to make girls like him, but he is simultaneously undermining his confidence at the root by learning to deny who is and pretend to be someone who he is not, effectively killing his chances of becoming genuinely confident over the long run to any serious degree. He is sacrificing long term rock solid confidence for a tiny boost now, and it is a totally unnecessary sacrifice. He is a bit more normal in the way he approaches girls so some girls who already dig him will find this enough, but by learning to not be who he is he is acquiring all sorts of incongruent behavior that is off putting to women and many girls who dig him – probably the better ones – will be repelled by his weird behavior.

    Further, he is setting himself up to be an emotional wreck as he beats himself up over each failure with women thinking that it is his fault if she did not like him because after all it was job to create attraction and he failed to do so. Each time a woman acts badly towards him he takes it as a referendum on his manhood – after all, if he was just alpha enough the woman never would have treated him that way. Since he is faking himself, he is also living in fear of being one day found out and the world seeing him for who he really is.

    So even for the extremely low confidence guy who might get a tiny boost from game we can see that it is like swallowing a poison that will kill you in the long run but might give you a temporary high.

  69. George says:

    I am currently very pleased with my life since I started gaming and have not had anyone malign me as a “weirdo”. Moreover, I have more friends than ever, along with a wonderful partner. All in all, I’ve never been better.

    For all we know, you are dating warpigs and tons of women completely cut you off and your buddies think you are a total loser ;) See what I am saying? Anecdotal self-reports just dont amount to much.

  70. Kirk says:

    “Very few gamers will say game has the kind of instantaneous powers you are ascribing to it.
    I have seen too much of game talk to believe that things played out nearly in the nice smooth elegant way you are describing and am quite sure there are all sorts of factors you are leaving out but lets assume for a moment things happened just as you say, and lets parse what happened, okay?”

    Sorry for not being clear enough. The effect wasn’t instantaneous. When I negged her, she laughed, but still seemed very cautious. She didn’t really open up to me until after we had talked for some time. Believe it or not, this whole witty “alpha” persona IS who I really am. I’ve just been suppressing this behavior because I was raised to believe it was wrong. Maybe you’re right about the whole incongruance thing.

    “Maybe you are not awkward around your male buddies and around girls you dont really care about but become awkward around girls you really do like but your fragile self image will allow you to admit that to yourself?”

    Still, even if I was being unknowingly awkward, why did it take me so long to find a girlfriend? Aren’t there girls out there who are attracted to awkard, nerdy guys? Also, why did multiple girls start to find me attractive after the first couple of months of gaming? Could that be one big coincidence?

    You said that men will have more success with women if they are true to themselves. If my true self
    was that of an awkward nerd (as you claim) and I was true to that self for 23 years, then why did I not find a single girl who accepted me? Without game, what alternative do I have? Are you telling me to lie down and die a lonely man? Seriously, what other options do I have?

  71. George says:

    Believe it or not, this whole witty “alpha” persona IS who I really am. I’ve just been suppressing this behavior because I was raised to believe it was wrong. Maybe you’re right about the whole incongruance thing.

    If its who you are then its not game ;) But this kind of *alpha* persona does not make women sexually attracted to guys, its just that if you are being who you are then you are willing to be normally social and women who are attracted to you will comfortable acting on that. For you it is wity guy, for others its aloof and quiet, for still others it is chatty and outgoing – it does not matter. As long as you are confident you will be fine (confidence does not create attraction but it allows you to be normally social) – and stop and think for a moment what the word confident means. It means belief in on-self – in other words it means being the guy you are. If you are one way but fake being another way you are by definition not confident.

    Aren’t there girls out there who are attracted to awkard, nerdy guys?

    Yes, but you can make a girl unwilling to ACT on her attraction if your behavior is too off-putting. Its hard to say without seeing you in action. No one is saying behavior is not important in human interactions, we are just saying that it does not create sexual attraction.

    Also, why did multiple girls start to find me attractive after the first couple of months of gaming?

    They did not find you more attractive. You just removed barriers for them acting on that.

    You said that men will have more success with women if they are true to themselves. If my true self was that of an awkward nerd (as you claim) and I was true to that self for 23 years, then why did I not find a single girl who accepted me

    First, dont get me wrong, being true to yourself wont make women attracted to you. Nothing you do will make women attracted to you, thats my whole point ;) But if you are true to yourself and thus congruent you will be a normal social person and any off-putting behavior such as neediness weirdness etc that you are doing to make women unwilling to act on their attraction to you will disappear, so you will hook up with more women that are already into you.

    Now, being awkward is by definition something that comes from being uncomfortable with one-self. A person who affirms himself and is not faking or putting on an act is not awkward. So you were a nerdy guy who did not have the courage to be himself, like all nerdy guys, and so felt awkward in social situations because you did not know what to *do* (not realizing that the man who is himself is never at a a loss for what to *do*), and put women who were into you off by being all weird.

    blockquote>Without game, what alternative do I have? Are you telling me to lie down and die a lonely man? Seriously, what other options do I have?

    See, thats just it – game tries to terrify men with threats of going without women for life. Its bullshit. First of all, game does not help you get women. You seem to be saying that game does – it does not. So its not like doing game equals getting women and not doing game equals going without like you are suggesting. You gotta get this false alternative out of your head.

    Women are into you based on your genotype, and there is nothing you can do about that – all you have to do is make sure you dont fuck it up with off-putting behavior. If you develop healthy self-esteem part of which is learning to accept who you are and not be afraid to express that in the real world, you will eliminate weird off putting behavior and get with the women that are into you. Guys are awkward shy and nervous because they feel they have to put on an act and cant just be themselves. Game increases the pressure. Being yourself just takes the pressure off and it makes you into a stronger more confident person all around. Its not just for women, its for yourself.

    So all you can do is dress well and try to look good and then learn to be yourself (you know, being yourself is not easy, it takes courage. This idea that being yourself is easy and game is hard is laughable. We have all been raised to fake ourselves and game is just one more version of the easy comfortable thing we have been doing our whole lives). You can also learn to better spot indications of interest from women. But thats about it. Good luck.

  72. Kirk says:

    George,

    Thanks for the advice. I read the blog that you linked and found it to be very enlightening. However, I am still having trouble getting rid of the whole game mindset. I was in a very dark place when I found game, so it sort of became my guiding light. Do you have any tips on how to build confidence and increase self-esteem without game? How about some more links?

    “So you were a nerdy guy who did not have the courage to be himself, like all nerdy guys, and so felt awkward in social situations because you did not know what to *do*”

    I was actually never an awkward nerd, I was speaking hypothetically:

    “Still, even if I was being unknowingly awkward, why did it take me so long to find a girlfriend? Aren’t there girls out there who are attracted to awkard, nerdy guys?”

  73. George says:

    You get out of game in stages, it does not happen automatically. It took me time too. Once you are thoroughly used to seeing the world a particular way it has a strong hold on your mind and it takes a bit of effort to shake it loose. It is almost like it is fighting to for survival in your mind ;) Especially if you feel like it was some kind of lifeline for you! But there ARE healthier alternatives.

    A really good seriess of articles detailing one mans journey away from game with probably the best explanations for why game makes you weak and is unhealthy can be found at http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/ Check out the articles on the side tab as his latest article comes at the end and is not the best place to start. He also offers a free and very short ebook that is worthwhile.

    I also really appreciate Mode One, which is sometimes billed as pick up but its not really about pick up at all. It just makes the case for being direct and straightforward with women on a sexual level and the positive effects this will have on your psyche and self-esteem. He has some good you tube videos and an ebook.

    I would say the SINGLE BEST resources for developing authentic self-esteem are the works of psychologist Nathaniel Branden, which are easily found on Amazon.

    I dont know if you are into literature at all, but interestingly the essays of Montaigne offer one of the best courses on how to grow in self-acceptance and authenticity and confidence and increase your general happiness in life. A powerful manual on how to live.

    An easy to implement way you can begin developing social confidence immediately is to drop all manipulation and attempts at fakery. In other words you learn to become more honest and authentic in your social interactions. Since you are not hiding anything, you are less nervous, because there is no dark secret for anyone to *find out* about you. Who you are is on display. You are also sending your own mind the signal that who you are is of value and worth. Simply cease *acting* and seeing it as your job to make people like you. You simply are who you are. Socially, you approach people with the intent to seek out those people who like who you are. You become less preoccupied with how people view you and less interested in changing yourself to suit others. Having the courage to be yourself is intensely liberating and confidence-building – layers and layers of anxiety and fears melt away.

    This is a behavioral change that you can implement immediately. It is not a very complex change but it does take courage. Now please realize that being who you are means not everyone will like you. And that that is perfectly fine. The quality of your relationships with people who do like you soar and you become a confident person who does not simply bend with the wind. You grow in self esteem when you learn to accept yourself. When you are honest. When you respect reality. These are all things you can do starting today.

    Forget about being *alpha*. In fact stop thinking in terms of beta and alpha, it is harmful. Forget about being *dominant* – simply be respectful of others but also be respectful of your own rights and needs. Forget about all the macho game bullshit. Dwelling on that stuff just damages your self-confidence and implants poison in you.

    I also like Alek Novy who always has an original take. He is abrasive, though, I will warn you, but personally I find his style amusing and straight to the point.

    http://aleknovy.com/2011/07/18/the-anti-game-method-if-you-hate-game-and-find-it-incompatible-with-mra-and-matriarchy-fighting/

    http://aleknovy.com/2011/04/18/how-puas-and-gamers-fuck-it-up-for-all-men/

  74. AlekNovy says:

    OTOH I’ve never seen a single guy saying he has tried game and it didn’t work*.

    I’ve seen thousands. And they’re all former gamers, and they all spent years preaching and praising game.

    Here’s the thing dude. Most people, when they leave game, they leave it in shame, and tend to not talk about it. They tend to put it in the backburner and not look back. This was true for me too, and the only reason I started speaking up about game again, was because I got pissed off on how it was being sold to the MRA community. I was one of the hundreds of thousand of ex-gamers who stayed silent about it.

    P.S – why hasn’t anyone taken on the challenge to prove it yet?

    The only people who took on the challenge, many years ago were the london-lair leaders who participated in a speed-dating experiment and got absolutely floored. They fared the worst in the experiment, yes, they got worse results than even average random participants.

    DeAngelo and Mystery make so much money they could comission a 1000 studies every year to scientifically validate every one of their claims (and still have 99% profit left). Why don’t they?

    Heck, even Roosh makes enough money to comission a study or two to validate some of his claims.

    Why has no gamer on planet earth (except the london brutally embarassed ones) ever taken on a public placebo-controlled test? EVER?

    http://www.seductionmyth.com/just_prove_it/the-experiment/

  75. AlekNovy says:

    Oh, and one more thing…

    AlekNovy’s 5-year-rule

    I have never not once met a single exception to my rule online and I know of a single exception in the offline world.

    Every single (non-commercial) guy you meet who’s super excited and at the height of believing and swearing in game has been in it for less than 3 years. Not a single person who you meet defending game has known for it more than 5 years.

    I’m sure an exception exists… But you have to take into consideration the “newbie excitement” factor. Placebo-based belief systems are always strong when you’re a newb. It only starts falling apart over the years.

    Of the thousands of people I have personally witnessed go through the cycle of entering game, preaching it as the best thing in the world, and eventually living it – for every single one the cycle lasted about 5 years. The only guy I know who still belives in game (despite being in it for 8 years) is a 32 year old virgin. He runs a blog on game and is a VIP at a game forum…And yes, he still has approach anxiety…

  76. Deansdale says:

    Just what I needed: another stuck-up troll.

    “I’ve seen thousands.”
    Why not millions? Come on…

    “The only guy I know who still belives in game (despite being in it for 8 years) is a 32 year old virgin. He runs a blog on game and is a VIP at a game forum…And yes, he still has approach anxiety…”
    You know what they say? Sometimes less is more. Maybe if your stories would be just a tiny bit less unbelievable, someone might actually believe them. (Apart from your religious follower George, I mean.)

    Guys, go play somewhere else.

  77. James A says:

    “Game would be exceedingly easy to prove. Contrary to your claim, it would not be difficult at all. Seductionmyth has a section explaining easily how it could be done (in the just prove it section).”

    Just wanted to come by and say that, as a phd student in a social science field, this argument is wildly, incredibly, amazingly full of fail.

  78. George says:

    Hmmm, James? Hey there, buddy.You did not actually mention which argument your social science credentials allow you to claim is full of fail. Get back to me when you actually mention the argument I referenced at seductionmyth and which you think is full of fail. Thanks bud, you’re a champ. I knew I could count on you.

  79. Kevin says:

    I think it can work for men that already are somewhat attractive, keep in shape, already have a good personality, make a good living and have friends. This whole idea of “game” is just a way of having a guy communicate when he had trouble communicating before. Its like teaching a guy to hit a curve ball when he can only hit fastballs.

    The BIG problem is when it is sold as a be-all, end-all for guys that really need to get their act together first. It is also sold as snake oil to guys that are a “4” or a “5” and they are told that when they learn “game” they can land a 9 or 10. Bullcrap. That is not going to happen.

    Groups like Mystery Method and such might work to some degree on certain girls (Mystery developed his system in PC Toronto and with strippers) but on the whole its rubbish. I know I tried it and sunk like concrete shoes.

  80. Mito says:

    Hey George anti-gamers… so i just want to give you a challenge. if you are anti-gamers and are succesfully with girl. prove your own Pics of video that display succesful portrait with women. the purpose of the game is to bring the correct path to success with women(getting laid, LTR commitment, marriage, etc). can you prove your own success with women without the “Game Concept”, i.e your own concept?

  81. Meee says:

    I’m interested to read the game… But in answering above, yeah I personally have slept with lots of girls and never used the game. But some things I heard, I was like, hey I do that. I just seemed make techniques naturally. I think the game can work, but when guys are obviously using it, it can seem like a weakness. I sort of want to read the book, to learn a few things, and to out game anyone I know who use the game… Sometimes, I think if you feel right, it should just come natural. But hey each to their own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s