Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Game By Neil strauss
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59240
Oh I agree. Since this thread came up I had a brief gander at some of the current stuff and yes it still has some of the guff(presumably to aim at the disillusioned young male market), but there does seem to be more about self growth, which can only be a good thing. I suppose since young mens minds/mickeys are more attuned to getting the ladies, the men who have zero luck in this this aspect of social personality it's going to be right at the top of "things I want to learn about" for a lot of men. Put it another way, if I could go back in time and meet my 19 year old self, I'd have tried to put him/me straight on a few things and one of those subjects would have been Women(tm), particularly how to avoid the flakes, the neurotics and the outright loopers(for me, they may gel with others), to look beyond the T&A and without the mickey getting in the way and look at them as personalities and based on that say "wanna meet again" or "eh no thanks lass, I'm doin me hair" as the case may be. Hell I'd be writing checklists with "if she does X or Y consistently eject! Eject! EJECT! I'd also advise - and this goes double for those prone to friendzone - don't focus on one person until it's moving towards what you(and her) want. Actually I'd advise similar to women getting into Bonkzone(tm)*Legs.Eleven wrote: »I don't think PUA genuinely boosts the confidence of men. A self-help book on improving self-confidence would be more effective long-term. The use of crutches will only get you so far.
As for actual "picking up"? I dunno, I reckon I'd just tell my 19 year old self chance your arm. What have you got to lose? For every woman who doesn't dig you, well that's cool. That's her feelings and that's fine too. However in a world where half the population are women, you'll find plenty of women who will dig you, so just keep talking with people, having some fun not worrying about getting your hole and they'll start to show up.
If I wanted to advise my 19 year old self on getting the flakes, the neurotics and the outright loopers? I'd photocopy a PUA handbook and tell him it was from the internet. And oh yea this is what that shíte is about. Invest in these companies and keep your trap shut. See you in the future having beach drinks and supermodels aplenty.
*where he's meeting for the shift, but that's it, no emotional or social engagement. The other side of the coin to Friendzone. In both cases one party is getting the bits of the relationship they want and the other party isn't. Not good, or healthy if it becomes a pattern. For all the blokes who complain about friendzone I've known nearly the same number of women who've been in Bonkzone. They tend to talk about it less though, or like men in the other situation, refuse to see it and hope they'll change. Both will be disappointed.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
This particular thread is very readable, I have wanted to comment for a while now.
I have read the book 'The Game.' I believe it is very well written, but at the end of the day is more a love story than a pick-up manual. I presume Strauss was aware of this when writing it, as it would therefore become more popular in the mainstream market. He himself comes out of it looking quite sympathetic and human compared to the other protagonists, who are simply devoid of typical emotions and lead horribly empty lives. Mind you, this is only hearing one side of the tale so to speak,
I also know a couple of people who actively pursue the PUA lifestyle. While I will confess that their success has improved with women, as Wibbs alluded to in one of the first posts, this is simply down to them being more social and talking to more females. (Btw the 'bonkzone' concept is brilliant, I must remember this) If someone talks to one lady every three months, she shows disinterest (either politely or impolitely), he will certainly be a lot more frustrated than someone else who chats to ten new women every weekend, as sooner or later the latter will meet one who is friendly and reciprocates his advances. The worrying thing from my point of view is that the two I know are convinced that it is the cringeworthy lines they use that make the difference, rather than it simply being a numbers game. Plus they talk about the PUA gurus as if they were gods. As others have mentioned, it seems to be a certain type that gets sucked into the PUA mindset, in my opinion, those who are severely lacking in emotional intelligence - presumably why they were not successful originally. Emotional intelligence enables you to look at each person as an individual and guage their reactions, to say 'if I do X the girl will do Y' is hugely insulting and demeaning. Imagine people saying the same about men?
Throughout history, I am sure that there were always a certain number of men who were better at seduction than the others, so the percentage of successful males I assume is roughly the same in 2013 as it was in 1913 or 1813. Someone releasing a book is not going to change this. Although what seems to be a lot worse now is the number of men who find social interaction extremely difficult, although this is just a hunch of mine, I have no figures to back it up.
As people have mentioned already, women have a huge advantage when it comes to directly approaching. Girls who are not particularly attractive will almost be certainly chatted up far far more in their lives than all but the most handsome of men. Shy men are particularly at a disadvantage I find. As much as women have been liberated in recent times, in Western Europe in 2013, I still believe that it's not controversial to state that the emphasis is still very much on the man to do the running initially, even though women can make this easier for him in various ways. Therefore, if PUA can enable males to start initiating conversations with strangers more, plus try to improve all aspects of their life (e.g. body language, posture, dress, hobbies, diet etc), then I would be willing to concede that it has its uses.
Vitaliorange, you seem to be fairly convinced of its merits and credit must go to you in agreeing to debate them. As opposed to that other Balaclava poster who was just trolling in my opinion.
I'll try to be completely objective here when I put forward the theory that the reason we generally get creeped out by PUA, is because it breaks down human interaction into steps, which may well be accurate and true to life, but it also takes any emotion or sponaneity out of the interaction, which is what makes us unique as humans and living creatures. Breaking down these social interactions into a linear process makes us seem no better than machines. Others mentioned how everyone uses techniques or routines, that much is true...whether they do this instinctively or have learned certain steps, just like how a comedian knows exactly at what point to drop in the punchline to get the audience to laugh.
But this is what life tends to be like, we learn from experience what to do in certain situations. One could then argue that PUA is simply like learning the steps of how VAT works.
Nevertheless, I feel slightly uncomfortable with the whole thing. I just believe it encourages far too much manipulation overall to be a good development in society. You could say I am a hypocrite, as maybe I manipulate people in other ways, or even that I am missing out, given I find it hard to approach strange women. However, even if it's just my gut instinct telling me to avoid, I would prefer to stay away.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
He does seem to have been the one with some cop on alright. Even a quick google of the others does not make for good reading. Something worked for him mind you, as his wife is way better looking than he is(if you like dolly birds. Bit too preened for my tastes).OnTheCouch wrote: »I have read the book 'The Game.' I believe it is very well written, but at the end of the day is more a love story than a pick-up manual. I presume Strauss was aware of this when writing it, as it would therefore become more popular in the mainstream market. He himself comes out of it looking quite sympathetic and human compared to the other protagonists, who are simply devoid of typical emotions and lead horribly empty lives. Mind you, this is only hearing one side of the tale so to speak,
Yea and the PUA schemes are aimed at those type of men. For some less extreme guys that are just a little bit behind the social curve I can see how a toe in the water of PUA type stuff would and does work, it's the extreme guys I'd worry about.As others have mentioned, it seems to be a certain type that gets sucked into the PUA mindset, in my opinion, those who are severely lacking in emotional intelligence - presumably why they were not successful originally.
Go right back i our genetic history and there are far fewer male lines that survive down to today. It seems for much of our history a small enough group of men had access and success with more women. This seems to be the case even before the more patriarchal agricultural revolution.Throughout history, I am sure that there were always a certain number of men who were better at seduction than the others, so the percentage of successful males I assume is roughly the same in 2013 as it was in 1913 or 1813.
I would say that today it's more competitive than say a few generations ago in the western world. A man born in say 1920 would expect that he would someday find a wife, settle down and have a family. Single men above say 30 were rare(even gay men who had to hide their feelings got hitched). Today single men above 30 are far more common, either by choice, or because they have little or no choice. Of course this leaves lots of single women around too, so it goes both ways. The old certainties, while not gone are less certain. For both genders.
I'd agree in a big way. I think today in the west we have more choice to be alone, even with all the vast array of communications open to us. Something like Boards is great for comms, but it is at a distance, one step removed from face to face. For example it's easier for a man(or woman) to take their time in replying. They can even google an opinion and sound more informed than they may be. Face and body language is absent. You could have someone on here who appears to be the life and soul, very sociable, yet in real life could be very introverted.Someone releasing a book is not going to change this. Although what seems to be a lot worse now is the number of men who find social interaction extremely difficult, although this is just a hunch of mine, I have no figures to back it up.
In older more traditional societies, the ability to be alone is much reduced. In tribal societies it's almost impossible. Unless you're of on a hunting trip or somesuch you're pretty much never alone. I'd bet the farm that social anxiety and self imposed social exclusion is nigh on unknown among such societies. Even in Ireland 30-40 years ago it would be hard for a teenager to be alone. They'd be spotted. Today many of the cues are gone, so you could have someone with a huge online life, but who is incredibly socially isolated.
Ditto, but I wish someone would come out with a better version of it.As people have mentioned already, women have a huge advantage when it comes to directly approaching. Girls who are not particularly attractive will almost be certainly chatted up far far more in their lives than all but the most handsome of men. Shy men are particularly at a disadvantage I find. As much as women have been liberated in recent times, in Western Europe in 2013, I still believe that it's not controversial to state that the emphasis is still very much on the man to do the running initially, even though women can make this easier for him in various ways. Therefore, if PUA can enable males to start initiating conversations with strangers more, plus try to improve all aspects of their life (e.g. body language, posture, dress, hobbies, diet etc), then I would be willing to concede that it has its uses.
My worry is he wasn't. I've certainly seen the same type of stuff on other forums and they were in earnest.As opposed to that other Balaclava poster who was just trolling in my opinion.
+1 People don't usually like being shown that much of what we think is "free will" and "natural" is actually often a set of variables, with some reoccurring patterns. If one is a reductionist of course. I have found that men tend much more towards reductionist thinking, or have less an issue with it, but women less so. Women are more likely to use words like fate, it was meant to be, love at first sight etc all demonstrably or at least arguably unrealistic, even nonsense. Especially when you add in the conscious manipulation aspect of PUA and no wonder people get freaked out by it.I'll try to be completely objective here when I put forward the theory that the reason we generally get creeped out by PUA, is because it breaks down human interaction into steps, which may well be accurate and true to life, but it also takes any emotion or sponaneity out of the interaction, which is what makes us unique as humans and living creatures.
Conscious manipulation is a biggie that makes us all uncomfortable. We all do unconscious manipulation to some degree. One could argue that push up bras, spanx, hair dye, makeup, generally uncomfortable clothes and shoes etc are unconscious PUA for many women of a night out. It is a mask after all. Is it a lie? No it's more complex than that, but it's not the "real" unadorned physical woman in question
Yea I'd agree there.Nevertheless, I feel slightly uncomfortable with the whole thing. I just believe it encourages far too much manipulation overall to be a good development in society. You could say I am a hypocrite, as maybe I manipulate people in other ways, or even that I am missing out, given I find it hard to approach strange women. However, even if it's just my gut instinct telling me to avoid, I would prefer to stay away.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
-
I spent 17 weekends in a row reading bukes like The Game. Self help books on how to be better with de wimmin. It didn't work
Mostly because I was sitting in reading bukes rather than being out cavorting with various ladies.0 -
-
Alf Veedersane wrote: »I spent 17 weekends in a row reading bukes like The Game. Self help books on how to be better with de wimmin. It didn't work
Mostly because I was sitting in reading bukes rather than being out cavorting with various ladies.
Reading alone is useless. No one learned to play the piano without actually playing it. Consistent practice is necessary for growth in most things.0 -
I must say, I'm quite impressed with that speech of his at the Teen Awards, thanks for sharing that, C. I hadn't actually thought much of him beyond the obvious Hollywood eye-candy, and sadly being a cheater in his personal life, at that.
However, 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. For such I would walk through broken glass; and that has nothing to do with being tall and good-looking (although that'd be a nice bonus, of course). 0 -
-
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. For such I would walk through broken glass; and that has nothing to do with being tall and good-looking (although that'd be a nice bonus, of course).
[MattDillonSomethingAboutMary] That's what I said! [/MattDillonSomethingAboutMary]0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Perhaps you could elaborate on that?
Without meaning to offend anyone who is american here of course. But a good number of these tricks are the sort of things that would only really work on dumb hollywood bimbos or the likes, the very gullible types. A good amount in the book would admittedly get you laughed at over here, women are far snarkier i find than in most places to say the least.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Without meaning to offend anyone who is american here of course. But a good number of these tricks are the sort of things that would only really work on dumb hollywood bimbos or the likes, the very gullible types. A good amount in the book would admittedly get you laughed at over here, women are far snarkier i find than in most places to say the least.
In which case it would only work on a minority of gullible people. And I'd say it's the blokes buying the book, not the women they try the lines on 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement