Let’s try this another way

Game is a collection of huge excel spreadsheets. It contains data from thousands of guys doing millions of social experiments. They wrote down what the effect of their behaviour was in certain situations. It goes something like this:

(The data in this example spreadsheet is of course just made up. Don’t take it at face value :)

THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT GAME IS.
(The practice, that is – the theory is another topic altogether.)

Now you see how it works: You study this spreadsheet and learn what works when and how. There are no guarantees but there are predictions. Of course there will be slight variaton for you based on your traits, preferences, skills, etc., but the averages are there.

It doesn’t force you to do anything. In any given situation you have perfect freedom to choose your course of action, but now you know what the odds of positive outcomes are. It’s up to you how you use this knowledge. If you don’t have moral problems you can always go for the options with the best possible outcomes. You can choose worse-than-perfect methods but still hope for good results.

It can not possibly “not work” because game contains every human behaviour imaginable. You can not do anything that is not “game”. The difference is between “good game” and “bad game”. Good game yields good results, and that is why it’s called good game. That is why it is being taught everywhere in the world. You can learn what is in those excel sheets without paying for them. The only thing you can not do is to say “game doesn’t work”. It makes you look stupid. If you say behaviour does not affect your chances at getting laid that’s like saying it does not matter if you punch her in the face, she will still have sex with you. Of course behaviour affects your chances at getting laid.

If you still don’t understand what game is and how it “works” please consult your doctor or pharmacist.

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

39 Responses to Let’s try this another way

  1. George says:

    No one is saying behavior will not affect your chances of getting laid. That would be ludicrous. If I choose not to go out tonight my chances of getting laid are quite low. If I punch the chic in the face, as you correctly note, I am reducing my chances.

    What we are saying is that behavior cannot create sexual attraction.

    Distinctions are crucial.

  2. George says:

    Also, you look at it solely from the perspective of efficiency or morality. (if you have no moral qualms you can choose maximum efficiency)

    There is a third perspective, that of self-respect. It is possible to believe that to achieve maximum efficiency at being a sophisticated woman pleaser at the sacrifice of my personality damages my ego, my happiness, and my manliness.

  3. Deansdale says:

    Somehow I didn’t even hope you’d understand.
    In case you were looking the other way the whole time, I’ll restate everything I’ve said so far: game gives you options. Which option you choose is up to you. If you decide you don’t want to alter your old habits, that’s fine. Good luck with that.
    And please stop trolling. Thank you.

  4. George says:

    game gives you options. Which option you choose is up to you. If you decide you don’t want to alter your old habits, that’s fine. Good luck with that.

    If this is the extent of your position, then we have no argument. Some game behaviors at least do give you more options. For instance, if you approach women, you increase your chances of getting laid. Game says you should approach women. Game increases your options.

    I merely claim game does not create attraction, and that attraction cannot be created by anything you do. Most gamers claim not merely that some behaviors give you more options with women (which is obvious), but that you can create sexual attraction in women through your actions. If that is not your claim then we are in agreement.

    One more thing – it is a false alternative between doing game and keeping your old habits. One can change ones old habits, but not adopt game.

    Cheers.

  5. prost says:

    “What we are saying is that behavior cannot create sexual attraction.”

    You’re right that makes him look stupid.
    Great read btw

  6. TDOM says:

    “It can not possibly “not work” because game contains every human behaviour imaginable. You can not do anything that is not “game… If you say behaviour does not affect your chances at getting laid that’s like saying it does not matter if you punch her in the face, she will still have sex with you. Of course behaviour affects your chances at getting laid.”

    This does not do your position any favors. If game contains every human behavior imaginable, then game does not exist. Your definition is too broad to be useful.

    “Game is a collection of huge excel spreadsheets. It contains data from thousands of guys doing millions of social experiments… You study this spreadsheet and learn what works when and how. There are no guarantees but there are predictions. Of course there will be slight variaton for you based on your traits, preferences, skills, etc., but the averages are there.”

    These spreadsheets are not as useful as you think. The predictions are only valid under the conditions in which the data was gathered. First, the data that is gathered is anecdotal, not the product of “social experiments.” Each guy is stating what worked for him. Unless you know more about the guy collecting the data and the methods he used to collect it. For instance, data collected by an ugly fat guy may yield considerably different results than a relatively good looking skinny nerd. Data collected by a guy at a night club may be vastly different than if the same guy was attending a church social. The personalities of the women involved may also make a difference in what works. It’s sort of like saying that a wage gap exists because women only earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men and attributing that to discrimination when an actual examination of why will lead to completely different conclusions.

    What you need in order to demonstrate that game exists and works is a definition from which a testable working hypothesis can be developed. It could be something like “a set of behaviors that if exhibited by the human male will cause the human female to become more willing to choose him as a sexual partner.” This is just one of several possible definitions and perhaps not the best, but it is clear and concise and far less vague than claiming that all behavior is game. It can also be tested and certain behaviors (like punching the woman in the face) can be eliminated. It can also be refined “game for fat, bald guys” or “how to get perfect 10s into the sack even if you are a big fat zero” which might include a program of diet, exercise, and personal hygiene. Of course people have been studying this sort of thing for decades and teaching people how to change their behavior for just about as long. They just call it psychology and counseling or therapy.

    TDOM

  7. thesecond says:

    “I merely claim game does not create attraction, and that attraction cannot be created by anything you do. Most gamers claim not merely that some behaviors give you more options with women (which is obvious), but that you can create sexual attraction in women through your actions. If that is not your claim then we are in agreement.”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/humor-sapiens/201106/are-women-more-attracted-men-who-court-them-humor

    So, did women find the humorous man more attractive? Yes, they did. In fact, women were three times more likely to give their phone number to the confederate who told the jokes, compared to the confederate who did not. The humorous men were also considered more attractive, intelligent, funny and sociable, although only the latter two were statistically significant differences.

    That disagrees with what you say. For example, the neg is often valued because women find it funny. A man who is willing to state negative things about her is more able to make her laugh. And the study above suggests strongly that men who make women laugh are more attractive.

    You claim that game isn’t scientific. True. But what you are saying isn’t scientific either. Your claim runs counter to the obvious results one can observe in the real world (attractive males gaining or losing attraction based on what they say) and studies such as the above. You’d have to really prove it for it to be plausible.

  8. George says:

    The humorous men were also considered more attractive, intelligent, funny and sociable, although only the latter two were statistically significant differences

    Enough said.

  9. Deansdale says:

    TDOM, there are two types of people. The first wants to understand, the second wants to argue. Usually I write for the first type. If what I write helps them to understand things better, that’s fine. I know my explanations are not perfect but they can help others to discern the meaning of things in their own way.
    If we just wait for the one perfect explanation or definition we will wait forever. I want to help other people but some of them can not be helped. It’s their loss, not mine.

  10. Deansdale says:

    I just found something interesting at Keoni’s:
    “My experiences jibed with what Stanton related. So I weighed in with my own anecdotal commentary at his site to let him know I appreciated how his insight helped me gain my own”

    This describes my thoughts perfectly. I write this blog (and 2 others…) to help other people gain their own insights. Of course some will argue endlessly about pointless details instead, but hey.

  11. George says:

    [I asked you nicely to stop trolling. Please do.]

  12. thesecond says:

    “The humorous men were also considered more attractive, intelligent, funny and sociable, although only the latter two were statistically significant differences

    Enough said.”

    Not really. You have to prove your point, against the flow of statistically insignifigant data. If you want to argue game doesn’t work, you need actual data. But anyway, more studies.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5083702/Men-can-laugh-women-into-bed-with-GSOH-say-psychologists.html

    The women in the study also judged the men who had a good sense of humour as more honest and said that they would be more likely to become friends with them.

    Funnier men were also seen as a better catch for a long-term relationship, according to the findings.

    http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2805%2900076-0/abstract

    To investigate this question, we measured the importance participants placed on a partner’s production of humor vs. receptivity to their own humor. Men emphasized the importance of their partners’ receptivity to their own humor, whereas women valued humor production and receptivity equally.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513805000565

    Participants chose which person was a more desirable partner for a romantic relationship, and which individual was more likely to have several personality traits. Only women evaluating men chose humorous people as preferred relationship partners.

    The scientific evidence is extremely clear. A sense of humour is extremely effective at making women more attracted to you. You are denying a well known fact proven by multiple studies and people’s general lifetime experience. And you are not only denying it you are proclaiming, based on zero evidence that the opposite must be true, that women aren’t attracted to a good sense of humour.

  13. George says:

    Deansdale, have you heard of Mode One by Roger Allan Currie? What do you think of it? It is pretty much about being absolutely straightforward and direct with women and not giving a shit what they think – i.e as far away from game as possible.

    Heres a youtube vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKBlh4GzI4U

  14. Deansdale says:

    He has a degree in theather and drama? Oh well…

    He has his own direct game tailored for his own stlye, status and skills. He makes the mistake of thinking his game would work for everyone. It wouldn’t.
    He uses some tools from the toolbox (direct approach, speak your mind, etc.) and thinks he knows everything. Blah.
    When will these guys realize that there is no specific type of game which works for every man?

  15. TDOM says:

    @ Deansdale
    “If what I write helps them to understand things better, that’s fine. I know my explanations are not perfect but they can help others to discern the meaning of things in their own way.
    If we just wait for the one perfect explanation or definition we will wait forever.”

    Understanding comes from clarity. Clarity is derived from concise, workable definitions. During the great game debate over at AVfM I took the position that game does not exist because there was no clear, concise definition and game could be defined as pretty much anything and everything.

    “When will these guys realize that there is no specific type of game which works for every man?”

    This type of statement is precisely why I say game doe not exist. While I can accept that there is no type of game that will work for every man, the lack of a clear definition of what game actually is also menas that there is no distinction between types of game. there is only a pool of information that is said will work, but may not work for you and no systematic way to determine what strategy to take. It is all trial and error.

    The field of “psychology” is a field that covers a very broad range of subjects. However, it can be defined and that definition can then be narrowed in a systematic way such that hypotheses can be proposed and theories generated and tested. Psychology encompasses human behavior and an entire field of psychology was developed to study this behavior. Many psychologists proposed a great many hypotheses and generated and tested a great many theories. Some theories have been shown to be valid and reliable predictors of human behavior, some weren’t. Thus psychology can be said to exist and to be useful.

    At this point, game is too poorly defined to be useful. You can tell me what works for you, but there is no way of knowing whether it will work for me or for anyone else. I am not opposed to the concept of “game,” I am only opposed to its incoherence.

    TDOM

  16. Deansdale says:

    Now I see the light. Love also doesn’t exist, because there is no clear, concise definition. Also, romance, intimacy, quantum theory and a few other stuff come to mind. How could I ever believe in such superstition?
    Fuck me.

  17. 7man says:

    Well, if nothing can be known for certain then certainly nothing can be known. Since there are exceptions that defy every generalization, then what appears to be generally true is not specifically always actually true. In general, men generally generalize but women typically personalize and come up with an exception to refute the generalization. Some men do this too. Rational discussion thereby becomes an exercise in futility since nothing can be known with certainty to their satisfaction.

    Anyway, Game works and facilitates attraction. This helps men and women get along peacefully and happily. Since Game is amoral, it is up to the integrity of each man to decide whether to use it morally or immorally. A man does not have to become someone different to use Game; it is just like learning another language.

  18. Retrenched says:

    “Well, if nothing can be known for certain then certainly nothing can be known. Since there are exceptions that defy every generalization, then what appears to be generally true is not specifically always actually true. In general, men generally generalize but women typically personalize and come up with an exception to refute the generalization. Some men do this too. Rational discussion thereby becomes an exercise in futility since nothing can be known with certainty to their satisfaction.”

    Are you sure about that? :)

  19. Retrenched says:

    Ah, but you’re right, of course. I was just being an ass.

  20. George says:

    Deansdale, what is attractive to me about Mode One is that it seems fearless, it seems confident, and it seems strong. Being direct and straightforward seems to me a very masculine thing. Currie is quite clear that if a woman does not find you physically appealing, this kind of direct behavior wont suddenly make her like you, although she will at least respect you, and women who do like you physically will be turned on by this kind of fearless directness. Mode One is more of a filtering device and a way to avoid wasting time with uninterested women, as well as a way to feel good about yourself as a man even if women reject you. You might not have gotten the girl but at least you acted in a self-confident way.

    I am curious if you could describe to me a game behavior that you think is a strong way for a man to act. I have to honestly say that from what I can see game is weak since it seems to involve deception and concealment of yourself. But you have repeatedly denied that game involves any kind of fakery at all, so I am curious if you could give me an example of a game behavior that is not fakery, and that is a strong way to act.

    For instance, just to give you an example, I feel that if I am feeling tender, affectionate, and loving towards my wife, to put on an aloof, cocky front would be a weak behavior. But you deny that game suggests that you should do that.

    Other examples of game behaviors that are weak is what is called *indirect game*, where you approach women from a 45% angle and make a throwaway comment over your shoulder, in its more extreme form, or where you simply are not honest and upfront about your intentions with a woman and practice concealment. To me, it seems that the strong, manly thing to do is walk fearlessly up to a woman and be straightforward about your intentions. That seems to me the strong way to act, whether or not women respond well to this.

    It seems to me that the essence of game is concealment or fakery, but you fervently deny this, so I am curious what you would describe as a game behavior that does not mis-represent your true emotional and mental state, and that is a strong way for a man to act.

  21. George says:

    I think you have to define game as behavior that can make women sexually attracted to you, so you cant say game is anything at all that you do. It is that sub-set of your behavior that makes women sexually attracted to you. You also cant say that game is merely behavior that gives you more options with women, since behaviors which wont make women like you sexually, will give you more options with women.

    To take your spreadsheet, smiling, say, wont make a girl sexually attracted to you, but might make a girl who already likes you more comfortable around you (or not). Punching a girl who likes you physically wont change the fact that she is sexually attracted to you, but will probably make her not hook up with you (or not).

    So it is not true to say that everything you do is game because everything you do has some kind of impact on how women react to you. The point of giving a name to something is so that we can distinguish it from other phenomena – if all behavior is game, then no behavior is game, because there is nothing to distinguish game behavior from non-game behavior. A name that does not clearly distinguish something from other phenomena is not a name, it is an empty word that has no meaning or significance.

    So game behavior are those behaviors that make women more attracted to you sexually. Now, in the current state of our knowledge, there is no evidence that there exist any behaviors that make women sexually attracted to you. There is no evidence that confidence or psycho-sexual dominance actually create sexual attraction in women who did not feel that attraction based on your physical genotype. Further, there exists a huge amount of evidence that sexual attraction depends on factors other than your behavior.

    That is a good summing up of our state of knowledge now. Although many men report success with game, once you examine these mens stories (i.e, they had to approach dozens of women before getting one to bite), it is quite clear that such men are usually poor interpreters of their own experiences. An equally valid interpretation is that these men merely found the woman who was attracted to them to begin with. Considering what we know about wishful thinking and cognitive biasses, and if we look at the actual stories of most men who report success with game, this evidence base is quite poor and unreliable. It is not simply that we cant know with 100% certainty. Lots of our knowledge just has a high degree of probability (in fact all of our science knowledge is not 100% certain), so it would be fine if game simply had a high degree of probability. The problem is that the evidence base provided by men who report success with game, for the reasons just listed, provide very low probability that game is true. Reducing this probability even further is the fact that just as many men report zero success with game, and the fact that despite a mushrooming of studies into female attraction in recent years, no study has provided support for the idea that your behavior can create sexual attraction. These last two facts, together with the poor evidentiary quality of self-reported success with game, paint a probability scoring for game well below 50%, which is well below anything we can describe as *knowledge*.

  22. George says:

    If everything you do is game, then game is just another word for behavior, and it is not at all clear why we need another word for something we already have a word for.

  23. George says:

    Finally, this idea that not everything works for everyone raises some troubling questions about game.

    If there is no one clearly definable set of behaviors that are universally successful, there must still be some common properties to all the behaviors that are successful, otherwise there would no reason to group these behaviors under the common heading game. A name describes something with specific properties.

    So what common property do all these diverse behaviors that we call game have? Do they merely have the common property of making women attracted to you? If one behavior can *work* for one man, but the exact opposite behavior *work* for another man, then logic dictates that it is not the behavior that is relevant at all, but some other factor. That is simple factor analysis. The mere fact that quite opposite behaviors work for different men is grounds for the logical conclusion that behavior is not the relevant factor. A well designed scientific experiment would be expected to yield precisely this result, that if no single factor can produce anything close to consistent results, then that factor is not relevant.

    Now, if the common property of all game behaviors is not merely that they create attraction in women, but say something else, like strength, on the assumption that women are attracted to strong behavior. In this scenario we cannot say merely that men must choose which behaviors work for them, but rather they must select from a suite of behaviors that all share the common property strong. In other words their selection must be from a specific sub-set of behaviors.

  24. 7man says:

    Think of Game as a range of behavior. If a man is bold and dominant 5% or 10% of the time he can act however he pleases the rest of the time (as long as it is not supplicating). He can be caring and compassionate and as long as long as he doesn’t seek her approval or attempt to appease her. It just works. He can just intentionally amp it up a small percentage of the time and the rest of the time not worry about it. Game is not a constant need.

  25. George says:

    Thats, fine, 7man, so game is a sub-set of behaviors that are bold and dominant. Not all behavior is game, as deansdale suggests, and anything that is not bold and dominant is not game. Now we have a much narrower definition of game that can actually be tested.

    I have a few questions for you – many men report success with indirect game, where you conceal your intentions behind a veneer of plausible deniability – i.e, their behavior is the opposite of bold, and the opposite of dominant. It is fearful. Do you accept the reports of such men as true, and if yes, how do you square that with your definition of game as bold and dominant behavior?

    Secondly, deansdale says that different things work for different men, do you accept this? If yes, please provide a scenario where multiple behaviors/reactions could be described as bold and dominant. In other words, please describe a situation where there are 2-3 different actions you could take towards a woman that are all bold and dominant, and why some men might experience success with one action, and another man with another action. Please explain why this should be so if women merely want bold and dominant behavior.

  26. George says:

    Also, if you could provide some evidence that bold and dominant behavior actually creates sexual attraction in women, I would be interested in seeing that as well.

  27. George says:

    Also, are you suggesting that in the absence of sexual attraction based on physical looks, bold and dominant behavior actually creates sexual attraction? Or does it merely enhance it?

    And would you describe faking and concealing your true emotional and mental state in order to win female approval bold and fearless behavior, or timid and fearful behavior?

  28. Rmaxd says:

    Deansdale what is the point of letting anti-gamers troll on a gaming blog .. ?

    Theres anti-gamer blogs for these guys, I really dont see the need for them here …

  29. Rmaxd says:

    George & his sock puppets pulled the same crap on Dalrocks blog & the Paul Elam debate, they cant put two decent sentences to save their lives …

  30. Deansdale says:

    I’m not a big fan of moderating comments :\

  31. Rmaxd says:

    So ban their backsides already, theyve been banned from practically every other gaming site out there …

    Nobody reads their shit, & theyre posts clutter your site with crap, preventing real gamers from entering the debates on your posts …

  32. Rmaxd says:

    For example …

    “…no study has provided support for the idea that your behavior can create sexual attraction. ”

    Are you kidding me, wtf is this crap …

    His verbal diarhead carries on …

    “In other words, please describe a situation where there are 2-3 different actions you could take towards a woman that are all bold and dominant, and why some men might experience success with one action, and another man with another action. Please explain why this should be so if women merely want bold and dominant behavior.”

    Does that sentence even make sense? Wtf …

    Seriously just ban AlekNovies sock puppets already … for love of god ….

  33. Goerge says:

    @ rmaxed – Right, there are a few anti-game blogs, and we would love to have you gamers come on board and argue – that’s the difference between us. We have nothing to hide and are unafraid of argument. We invite gamers onto seductionmyth.com to refute us (why do you think we keep on posting the link?). We do not fear logic, science, and facts, and do not seek to ban those who disagree with us.

    That’s the difference between us, rmaxed – you call us trolls and seek to ban us when we come to debate, we invite you to debate with us and refute us and show us we are wrong.

  34. Deansdale says:

    You’re not banned here either.

    Problem is, even ancient greek philosohers understood that you can argue for and against everything – “pure” logic means nothing without understanding the proper context, and having valid premises and data. You obviously lack these, so there is no point in debating your endless loops of mental masturbation. Don’t take it personally but this is how it is. You say I can’t prove scientifically that game works, which is of course true. But actually I do not want to prove anything to you. I talk about my experiences. I know for a fact that game works, but I don’t give a flying fuck about who believes what. If you can salvage something useful from my blogposts, more power to you. If you don’t, that’s not the end of the world. Go find your happiness elsewhere and stop trying to disprove my everyday reality.

  35. George says:

    I appreciate that I am not banned here, and you are one of the few game blogs that has that kind of integrity (Dalrock being the other I am aware of). But it is revealing that so many gamers cry out for banning those who disagree, and so many game blogs actually do that (roissy is notorious for this, roosh also). The urge to suppress dissent goes along with weak character and a sense of insecurity – is it really a surprise that this urge is very strong amongst gamers?

    I am not trying to draw you back into argument with me, but I just want to clarify a point.I get that you have concluded from your experiences that game works. My point was always that you might have interpreted your experiences incorrectly. I never questioned your experiences, I just questioned your explanations of them. After all, have you never been convinced something you were doing was having a particular effect, only to later find out you couldn’t have been more wrong, that there were factors you weren’t aware of, that other things you never thought about were the really decisive factors? I know I have. I am sure we all have. That’s why one must become cautious in explaining one’s own experiences after a while. Unfortunately, our human cognitive biases are particularly ferocious when it comes to our personal experiences, as one might expect.

    It’s like the mystic who has a particular experience and is convinced he has communed with God – yet he is being uncritical about his experiences. Maybe he communed with the Devil? Isn’t it instructive that each mystic “interprets” his experiences in accordance with his particular religious tradition? Obviously there is a genuine experience there, it is the interpretations that are uncritical.

    Anyways, just wanted to clarify that.

  36. Rmaxd says:

    Jesus fucking christ, these sock puppets sure know how to kill a thread stone cold dead … lmao

  37. Badger says:

    The game denialism is howlingly funny and disturbingly tragic at the same time.

    “Behavior cannot create sexual attaction?” LMFAO.

  38. Tom H says:

    Dominance is all about behavior. Dominance is essential to game for many guys. I see it every time I go dancing by the response of women. Dominance is inside game space.

    Even with initial attraction, there is a tricky minefield that has to be navigated in order to approach many women about sex and that is all about behavior. Say the wrong thing or the right thing at the wrong time and you crash and burn. Navigation is inside game space.

    Nice-guy-ism is all about behavior. We can safely say that game does NOT involve behaving like a nice guy. Nice-guy behavior is outside of game space.

    There’s some clarity about game space for ya.

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