The Game By Neil strauss

--Kaiser--

old hippy wrote: »

I'll be sure and mention that to the wife & see what response follows :rolleyes:

Hopefully she has a better sense of humour than you

hatrickpatrick

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

That's just words. What advice does it give a man on how to become a well rounded self confident person who respects himself and the other people (including women!) he comes into contact with? Does it encourage him to develop himself intellectually? Does it encourage him to think about the consequences of his actions in his everyday life?

It doesn't, but it never claims to do any of those things, it simply claims to help guys become better at pulling.
One can debate whether or not it actually succeeds in this, but debating whether or not it does things it never advertised itself as in the first place is a bit like criticising a guitar teacher because he or she doesn't teach how to play piano as well.

hatrickpatrick

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I suppose one thing I can't relate to is the aim of simply getting attractive women into bed and there's no focus on just being better with women overall and seeing them as simply human. I can't see how teaching young men to bed women is a positive thing long-term when perhaps many of these men want relationships or get to know someone beyond just having sex with them. It's promoting a fairly shallow existence that perhaps is addictive and initially very appealing but I know full well it can lose its sheen (and I'm speaking from experience here) and can even knock your confidence when all your interactions with the opposite sex are about sex; it can all start to feel a little meaningless after a while. I think it'd be better to have some kind of guide to enable men to understand that women aren't that much different to themselves and are nothing to be afraid of for it to be worthwhile long-term. I don't believe the aim of all this is a positive one long-term from my perspective.

The thing is, we can regard it as sad / pathetic / whatever we like, but that's not going to change the fact that for some guys, they don't want anything more than a string of one night stands.
Now who am I or you to decide that this isn't positive, just because it's not what we want out of life? This doesn't just apply to guys - I know plenty of girls who go home with a different guy every time they head out to a club. Plenty of people would (and do) look down on them for this, but at the end of the day if they're happy then what business is it of mine? You may not regard teaching people how to get a bunch of one night stands as a good thing, but others clearly aren't bothered by it, so who are any of us to put it down just because it doesn't appeal to us?

old hippy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Hopefully she has a better sense of humour than you

Maybe when the continual mocking of Japanese dies down on boards, she will.

thegreatgonzo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't, but it never claims to do any of those things, it simply claims to help guys become better at pulling.
One can debate whether or not it actually succeeds in this, but debating whether or not it does things it never advertised itself as in the first place is a bit like criticising a guitar teacher because he or she doesn't teach how to play piano as well.

According to Vitaliorange: 'If you look at the countless rsdnation videos for example you'll that their are many aimed at developing yourelf in all areas of your life. There lots of advice on how to develop a work ethic and to develop your passions in life. Also mental health topics such as meditation are encouraged'

Since he knows more about this stuff than me I'm happy to take his word for it. So it would seem that at least some of the PUA stuff out there is making those claims.

BraziliaNZ

old hippy wrote: »

Maybe when the continual mocking of Japanese dies down on boards, she will.

Build a bridge...



...over the River Kwai...

old hippy

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Build a bridge...



...over the River Kwai...

And this is amusing, why?

BraziliaNZ

old hippy wrote: »

And this is amusing, why?

Build a bridge, another way of saying "Get over it".
The Japanese forced POWs to build a Bridge over the River Kwai, later made into a hit movie.

I think it's one of the smartest things I've ever posted on boards tbh.

Edit: Turns out it was a fictional story. I'm still hilarious though.

old hippy

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Build a bridge, another way of saying "Get over it".
The Japanese forced POWs to build a Bridge over the River Kwai, later made into a hit movie.

I think it's one of the smartest things I've ever posted on boards tbh.

Get over it, grow a thicker skin, ah sure it's a joke etc etc ad nauseum.

I guess I'm reading all the wrong books.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

old hippy wrote: »

Get over it, grow a thicker skin, ah sure it's a joke etc etc ad nauseum.

I guess I'm reading all the wrong books.

you are the worst person on boards

old hippy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you are the worst person on boards

For the so-called "comedians" who think the Japanese are fair game, yes, yes I am.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

--Kaiser--

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you are the worst person on boards

Ouch!

hatrickpatrick

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

According to Vitaliorange: 'If you look at the countless rsdnation videos for example you'll that their are many aimed at developing yourelf in all areas of your life. There lots of advice on how to develop a work ethic and to develop your passions in life. Also mental health topics such as meditation are encouraged'

Since he knows more about this stuff than me I'm happy to take his word for it. So it would seem that at least some of the PUA stuff out there is making those claims.

Some PUA stuff is indeed, I was referring more specifically to "The Game" and it's own extended communities, if you like.

"PUA" encompasses a fairly wide variety of communities, so it's usually necessary to subdivide before talking of them. Since the thread title refers to The Game, that was the "brand" of PUA I was referring to.

Czarcasm

Pug160 wrote: »

The number of replies to threads like these speak for themselves. A book about something seemingly simple opens up discussions about psychology, history, gender relations, exploitation, misogyny, chauvinism, evolution, marketing, charlatanism and many other topics. If it's able to draw that out of posters, then maybe it's a thumbs up for freedom of speech and less restriction? Just a thought.

I'd say Pug it was more a massive thumbs up for posters being able to discuss an issue in a civil manner. I've always said "It's not what you say that makes a difference, it's HOW you say it".

I think what makes some people feel uncomfortable - women more so than men probably - is the idea that human interaction involving attraction and romance can be measured or calculated. Well it probably can, just like most things can be. Although that doesn't mean it should be. I think doing so probably takes the gloss off certain memories. Take for example, a couple who claim they met each other and it was ''love at first sight'' and they ''just clicked''. In reality, all that was, was good rapport, attraction and other rational things. But dissecting it isn't particularly fun.

I don't know anything about psychology, biology, sociology or anthropology, so for me personally, when I hear people say that attraction and human behaviour can be measured, calculated, quantified and rationalised, I find it a bit, well, I don't have anything beyond my own personal bias and anecdotal evidence that would suggest anything to the contrary. There are people here obviously far more qualified in those areas of human behaviour, evolution and social history, but IMO these explanations are all a bit far too complicated. I just think attraction in it's many different forms can be anything BUT rational and quantifiable.

I wholeheartedly agree with you though that dissecting attraction DOES indeed take all the fun and spontaneity out of it, and that's the problem I have with the whole PUA ideology. You have these guys that are unqualified in the fields of psychology, biology, sociology and anthropology, who have picked up a few buzzwords here and there, and wrapped it all up in a convenient package which appeals to guys who are analytically minded and who have to rationalise everything.

As I watched that video that Vitaliorange linked to earlier, among the things that struck me was the lack of enthusiasm among the audience. They hardly reacted at all, save for the odd mumbled question or stifled agreement. It was easy see why people wouldn't be attracted to that, and I don't need a PhD in psychology to see that they were a fairly disinterested bunch.

If a person doesn't show any interest in anybody but themselves, then how can they honestly expect anyone to show any interest in them? PUA just encourages contrived interaction, and while I haven't read "The Game", I'm half way through another book that was recommended earlier in the thread, and all it is is just the mechanics of social interaction and contrived social interactions, for people that read manuals. People aren't programmable and predictable like machines, they're spontaneous and they break rules, and you won't learn anything about people by reading about them in a book or by listening to someone else telling you how THEY interact with people.

I think seenitall summed it up far better than I ever could in her post when she said:

seenitall wrote: »

everything he said there is really suited for this thread, being in such stark contrast to the PUA guff. He sounds exactly like someone growing and evolving through his experiences and mistakes, very genuine. I can't emphasize enough how attractive it makes him, especially what he said about being sexy: it's about being intelligent, and being generous. Generosity of spirit is the ultimate aphrodisiac IMO; it means caring about others, having the heart and the cop on to consider more than merely oneself and one's own motives and desires, so it is the very opposite of disempowered, self-esteem nullifying plotting tactics and manipulating people into submission for the sake of quick gratification that is the gist of (most of) PUA.

There is precious little more attractive than meeting an intelligent man who knows his own mind and is open to the vulnerability of his humanity and the humanity of others, open to compassion and pain and taking emotional risks.

That's shìt you can't learn in books, and you won't learn it from PUA "systems" either. Just now when I wrote that, I had a fleeting memory of my mother telling me as a child - "Your only friends are in your school bag, they'll stand to you all your life".

She was wrong then, and 30 years later she's still wrong. I could learn how to accomplish many things from books, but I could never have accomplished so much as a tenth the things I've done in my life without other people who I approached with an idea and they shared that idea. I didn't have to manipulate them, or coerce them, or any of the rest of that so-called "life improvement skills" that Vitaliorange says PUA gives people.

old hippy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

Gosh, you're so amusing. If only you lived up to the the actually funny character you took your username off.

Still, the fact that you can continue to play to the LCD says much more about your own shortcomings than you can imagine.

Good luck with PUA. You'll need it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

im already tenth level, i've been negging you for the last page and a bit

old hippy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im already tenth level, i've been negging you for the last page and a bit

You must be an absolute hit at dinner parties, you lothario, you.

Pug160

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Let's be honest, we're not the most stunningly attractive bunch in the world, not by a good bit. We've had quite a restricted genetic pool and the best looking people I've seen tend to be in places where there is a good genetic mixture - continental Europe and the US

In places where there is a wider gene pool, the most attractive looking people will probably be more stunning or handsome, but there will also be more average people too, because of the size of the population. I was in Canada a few years back, and sure, the really attractive women were hotter. But that was only a small percentage of them. The average women were the same as the average ones over here IMO. Realistically, most of the average Joes aren't really in with a shot with those types anyway.

Femme_Fatale

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Japanese people are aliens - I thought this was common knowledge

Oh ffs this was just a light-hearted joke. No evidence of being anti Japanese whatsoever. It is possible to make jokes about nationalities without any malice or animosity towards them at all. Plenty of jokes about us Irish - doesn't bother me in the slightest when there's no malicious intent, which there usually isn't.

Pug160

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd say Pug it was more a massive thumbs up for posters being able to discuss an issue in a civil manner. I've always said "It's not what you say that makes a difference, it's HOW you say it".





I don't know anything about psychology, biology, sociology or anthropology, so for me personally, when I hear people say that attraction and human behaviour can be measured, calculated, quantified and rationalised, I find it a bit, well, I don't have anything beyond my own personal bias and anecdotal evidence that would suggest anything to the contrary. There are people here obviously far more qualified in those areas of human behaviour, evolution and social history, but IMO these explanations are all a bit far too complicated. I just think attraction in it's many different forms can be anything BUT rational and quantifiable.

I wholeheartedly agree with you though that dissecting attraction DOES indeed take all the fun and spontaneity out of it, and that's the problem I have with the whole PUA ideology.
.

I think it just feels that way, which is why it's probably better to not overanalyse it. Thinking about it takes the fun away and makes it all seem too cynical. But even so, it doesn't mean it can't be gone over and dissected. But doing so really isn't worthwhile unless you're doing it for academic reasons.

old hippy

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh ffs this was just a light-hearted joke. No evidence of being anti Japanese whatsoever. It is possible to make jokes about nationalities without any malice or animosity towards them at all. Plenty of jokes about us Irish - doesn't bother me in the slightest when there's no malicious intent, which there usually isn't.

Ah but you see, there is malicious intent. And when it comes to the Japanese, they are always portrayed in a "funny foreigner" kind of way. Esp by a few on boards. That it crops up in a thread about emotionally stunted men who don't know how to relate to women, is not so surprising.

It may win me much derision and gleeful laughter but when it comes to loved ones & family, I'm afraid my sense of humour is sorely tested.

Regards,

o.h.

Vitaliorange

Pug160 wrote: »

In places where there is a wider gene pool, the most attractive looking people will probably be more stunning or handsome, but there will also be more average people too, because of the size of the population. I was in Canada a few years back, and sure, the really attractive women were hotter. But that was only a small percentage of them. The average women were the same as the average ones over here IMO. Realistically, most of the average Joes aren't really in with a shot with those types anyway.

Thats rubbish, "average Joes" can an do get stunning women. You just need confidence and to know how to talk to women.

Toby Take a Bow

old hippy wrote: »

Ah but you see, there is malicious intent. And when it comes to the Japanese, they are always portrayed in a "funny foreigner" kind of way. Esp by a few on boards. That it crops up in a thread about emotionally stunted men who don't know how to relate to women, is not so surprising.

It may win me much derision and gleeful laughter but when it comes to loved ones & family, I'm afraid my sense of humour is sorely tested.

Regards,

o.h.

Looking back, it seemed to come up in reference to the person not being able to explain the beauty of Japanese women as s/he had previously said that beauty is linked to a large gene pool.

Other nations that would traditionally be seen as beautiful (Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian) would also have small gene pools (I would think).

Pen.Island

This is just as good as any book! :P

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

Czarcasm

Pug160 wrote: »

I think it just feels that way, which is why it's probably better to not overanalyse it. Thinking about it takes the fun away and makes it all seem too cynical. But even so, it doesn't mean it can't be gone over and dissected. But doing so really isn't worthwhile unless you're doing it for academic reasons.

This is about it really. The whole PUA thing, it's not academics, these PUA "gurus" themselves print their legal disclaimers in the small print to cover their arses. They never make mention of the feelings or emotions involved (well, not much more than to say "women are scared of having sex with men because they might get pregnant"... What a crock tbh, can they not just admit these women don't find these men attractive?).

PUA actually ENCOURAGES people who are cynical, to be even MORE cynical. I mean, even if the guy manages, somehow, to convince a girl to have sex with him, then the sex is just as mechanical as the initial interaction, completely devoid of any spontaneity or passion. The sex is shìte basically, and so about one night is all these guys will get from a girl before she figures "Fcuk that! I've got a vibrator at home if I want sexual fulfillment from a mechanical device".

That shìt gets old quick, really quick, unless you're permanently stalled mentally and emotionally at the adolescent level.

Vitaliorange

How to approach in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUDNdHS06C8

Pen.Island

Vitaliorange wrote: »

How to approach in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUDNdHS06C8

You can't take YT videos as truth.

Vitaliorange

Pen.Island wrote: »

You can't take YT videos as truth.

Whats that mean?

Pen.Island

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Whats that mean?

It's like those "funny" iPhone message screenshots you see. They can be fake and made up, just like them videos.