|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bloopity Bloop
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Location: Seoul yo
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject: The Game |
 |
|
Anyone read The Game by Neil Strauss? It's an incredibly interesting read.
It's essentially a non-fiction account of the man's life as delves into the world of pick-up artists--individual that've 'mastered' the art of picking up women. Basically, Strauss was a complete failure with women until he discovered the PUA world.
A former writer for the New York Times, he initially thought it'd make a great story to cover these guys. He ended up befriending a number of the top PUAs, engrossed himself in their world, and transformed into, what many of his peers considered, the top PUA in the world.
I ended up reading a few of his other pieces and these guys have really broken down the science of social dynamics DOWN. Their techniques, or at least the ones I have read, sshould be common sense, but I never thought through them at the level these guys have.
For example, if you want to approach a group of people at a club, it's much more effective if you approach at an angle and open with an interesting canned routine--like, "You guys see that fight outside?" Also, you need to throw in a "time constraint" in the first few things you say to the group. "I gotta get back to my friends in a second, but I need your opinion on blah blah blah..."
If you stand square in front of the group, it's kind of intimidating, so that's why you stand at an angle and rock on your back foot--it gives off the impression that you could leave at any time. You throw in the time constraint because then they won't have to worry if you're just some weird guy that's gonna linger around them for god knows how long. You open with some canned opener because it's interesting AND they're neutral; so no one in the group thinks you want anything sinister out of them.
It all makes perfect sense, right? But you probably never thought of it like that.
I think it's pretty fascinating stuff.
I understand this is all old news, but I'm guess most people still don't know about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laguna
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: Re: The Game |
|
|
| Bloopity Bloop wrote: |
Anyone read The Game by Neil Strauss? It's an incredibly interesting read.
It's essentially a non-fiction account of the man's life as delves into the world of pick-up artists--individual that've 'mastered' the art of picking up women. Basically, Strauss was a complete failure with women until he discovered the PUA world.
A former writer for the New York Times, he initially thought it'd make a great story to cover these guys. He ended up befriending a number of the top PUAs, engrossed himself in their world, and transformed into, what many of his peers considered, the top PUA in the world.
I ended up reading a few of his other pieces and these guys have really broken down the science of social dynamics DOWN. Their techniques, or at least the ones I have read, sshould be common sense, but I never thought through them at the level these guys have.
For example, if you want to approach a group of people at a club, it's much more effective if you approach at an angle and open with an interesting canned routine--like, "You guys see that fight outside?" Also, you need to throw in a "time constraint" in the first few things you say to the group. "I gotta get back to my friends in a second, but I need your opinion on blah blah blah..."
If you stand square in front of the group, it's kind of intimidating, so that's why you stand at an angle and rock on your back foot--it gives off the impression that you could leave at any time. You throw in the time constraint because then they won't have to worry if you're just some weird guy that's gonna linger around them for god knows how long. You open with some canned opener because it's interesting AND they're neutral; so no one in the group thinks you want anything sinister out of them.
It all makes perfect sense, right? But you probably never thought of it like that.
I think it's pretty fascinating stuff.
I understand this is all old news, but I'm guess most people still don't know about it. |
The story, while full of truth, isn't told so well.
"The System" by Doc Love is a much better representation, and is easier to digest and analyze.
They are both basically the same thing, keeping women that you don't play to marry interested in you by showing dominance over them and giving them as little attention as possible.
People may not like it, but it works and has great insight into human sociology and psychology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:55 am Post subject: Re: The Game |
|
|
| laguna wrote: |
| Bloopity Bloop wrote: |
Anyone read The Game by Neil Strauss? It's an incredibly interesting read.
It's essentially a non-fiction account of the man's life as delves into the world of pick-up artists--individual that've 'mastered' the art of picking up women. Basically, Strauss was a complete failure with women until he discovered the PUA world.
A former writer for the New York Times, he initially thought it'd make a great story to cover these guys. He ended up befriending a number of the top PUAs, engrossed himself in their world, and transformed into, what many of his peers considered, the top PUA in the world.
I ended up reading a few of his other pieces and these guys have really broken down the science of social dynamics DOWN. Their techniques, or at least the ones I have read, sshould be common sense, but I never thought through them at the level these guys have.
For example, if you want to approach a group of people at a club, it's much more effective if you approach at an angle and open with an interesting canned routine--like, "You guys see that fight outside?" Also, you need to throw in a "time constraint" in the first few things you say to the group. "I gotta get back to my friends in a second, but I need your opinion on blah blah blah..."
If you stand square in front of the group, it's kind of intimidating, so that's why you stand at an angle and rock on your back foot--it gives off the impression that you could leave at any time. You throw in the time constraint because then they won't have to worry if you're just some weird guy that's gonna linger around them for god knows how long. You open with some canned opener because it's interesting AND they're neutral; so no one in the group thinks you want anything sinister out of them.
It all makes perfect sense, right? But you probably never thought of it like that.
I think it's pretty fascinating stuff.
I understand this is all old news, but I'm guess most people still don't know about it. |
The story, while full of truth, isn't told so well.
"The System" by Doc Love is a much better representation, and is easier to digest and analyze.
They are both basically the same thing, keeping women that you don't play to marry interested in you by showing dominance over them and giving them as little attention as possible.
People may not like it, but it works and has great insight into human sociology and psychology. |
I also like to read that kind of material. I find the various theories on this or that aspect of social relationships very interesting, whether I agree with them or not.
Some of the "pick up artists" are pricks, and others stray too far into the manipulative side of things (like Ross Jeffries), but a lot of them focus on self improvement and generally having positive and fun social interactions.
Mystery, as reported in The Game, takes a, what would you call it, an evolutionary approach. We fear rejection because evolution favored that trait. Attraction is not a choice, but an instinctive response to certain buttons being pressed; for women it is a dominant man, among other things.
Some interesting ideas, but on the whole, his techniques are fairly narrowly focused on picking up hot women in meat market clubs - and strippers. It's also pretty shallow. In "The Game" Mystery has a complete breakdown over one woman, and when the author finds a woman he actually cares about, finds that Mystery's techniques to be a liability, and gets her in spite of them, not because of them.
"Doc Love" is an out of touch old fool with absurdly disorganized material which is 95% waffle anyway. His few good ideas are side by side with suggestions such as: "don't get her mobile phone number. Insist on her home phone number, call her at 8pm on sunday for a date the next weekend, tell her the one day and time you are available to meet, so you look busy."
The best I have found is "The Dating Wizard". Sound advice with clear explanations, with a focus on satisfying your partner in a relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:32 am Post subject: Re: The Game |
|
|
It's a great book. Every woman should read it to better understand what they feel attracted to and why. That might open the door to a little more meta-cognition about what makes for a great guy and what makes for an attractive jerk.
Though I'll disagree and say that Mystery is still the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laguna
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Game |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
It's a great book. Every woman should read it to better understand what they feel attracted to and why. That might open the door to a little more meta-cognition about what makes for a great guy and what makes for an attractive jerk.
Though I'll disagree and say that Mystery is still the best. |
Mystery the technique, or mystery the person?
I agree that women should read this stuff, but usually they don't get it. The thing is that even a woman that knows these things still acts instinctively, they still get sick of a man after awhile if he doesn't make her chase him or gives her too much attention.
I have to laugh whenever I meet a guy that does everything his woman asks of him and always gives up what he wants to make her happy. Not only does he lose all respect, but eventually that woman loses her respect for him as well and cheats with a man (or woman) that will not cave right away to every demand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: The Game |
|
|
| laguna wrote: |
I agree that women should read this stuff, but usually they don't get it. The thing is that even a woman that knows these things still acts instinctively, they still get sick of a man after awhile if he doesn't make her chase him or gives her too much attention.
I have to laugh whenever I meet a guy that does everything his woman asks of him and always gives up what he wants to make her happy. Not only does he lose all respect, but eventually that woman loses her respect for him as well and cheats with a man (or woman) that will not cave right away to every demand. |
Men are exactly the same way, in this respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DorkothyParker
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I won't argue that there isn't a such thing as human biological nature, nor would I argue that social structures/expectations don't shape individuals, I do find the reductionist natures of these sort of books pretty irritating.
Whether it be "The Rules" or "The Game", I do find most of these relationship books to be annoying and rather sexist.
Whatever happened to just being straight forward but polite? People and their relationships have a way of working themselves out in an organic fashion. Why overthink the process? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xylox
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've read that book, it sounded pretty believable until his main pickup artist friends started dressing like fruitbags in multicolour robes to attract women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyeon Een
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Mystery" is Eban Pagan.
Eban Pagan makes millions to tens of millions of dollars a year selling dating advice ebooks. He does a hell of a lot better than 99% of writers who have physical books.
He does the 'how to pick up women' thing and 'how to get your ex back' and a few others. Google those phrases and you'll run into his websites probably.
I enjoyed Strauss's book though. An ineresting read. I think it's good to read as a semi-autobiography rather than as a guide on how to pick up women. Strauss did well, and he also makes money these days by telling people how they can pick up women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mystery had/has a reality show where he takes nerdish guys and teaches them the game and one is eliminated each episode. Some of the stuff is surreal. Seeing some guys go from 'zeros' to 'heroes' so speak.
It works for him and his charges. A lot of guys who do well with women have 'natura' game and basically do some of the things he does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neilsputnik
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted.
Last edited by neilsputnik on Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:10 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laguna
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| neilsputnik wrote: |
I never had a problem meeting women nor sustaining long term relationships, but I stumbled onto 'The Game' from a (female) friend weirdly enough. I found it initially very amusing, these wacky characters on some alternative lifestyle trip. Strauss is a good writer too.
Since then, I have read a lot of the material out there, spanning most of the 'systems'. I used to think it was great and very funny stuff, and although there is a good side in purportedly helping guys with no social skills, it quickly becomes apparent that a lot of this stuff is marketing hype, as well as ethically dubious at best.
-- A lot of the theories are based on an narrowly circumscribed evolutionary theory of humans. "Push the right buttons, and she will be 'hardwired' to respond." This is faulty namely because it doesn't take into account the role of real life personality differences and situations, culture, ideals, nor intellect. To me, there is something missing painting humans as the sum of their DNA. Further, a lot of mating and flirting rituals are culturally formed, and transform culturally, so I am not sure that I agree with the hard core evolutionary argument often implicit in much of these theories. Pushing it to its logical conclusion, you should be able to walk up to ANY woman, ANY time and push the right buttons. This is clearly not the case. In a move of (to me) astounding illogicality, many of the systems state, or their gurus confess that "some women just don't want to be picked up and you just gotta improve your odds by learning the material."
-- -- A realist response is that the techniques work so it must be hardwired responses. However, the information that isn't revealed is the ratio of success to failure. It might be the case that certain women respond differently to different guys, and if so, it appears to be some other variable accounting for success or failure than tapping into the hardwired responses.
-- It doesn't account for different types of people meeting each other. For instance, the theories assume that geeky (or insert any pejorative term) guys cannot meet attractive women. However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that geeky guys can meet other geeky women, and geeky guys can meet (attractive or otherwise) women who like geeky guys.
-- A lot of systems seem to be about borderline manipulation. If you get into the material, you will hear a lot about 'frame control', 'alpha males', 'dominance' and such. To me, these are just euphemisms for doing what you want to whomever you want merely for the purposes of being 'attractive'. Whilst this may be an aspiration for some, it is not something I need nor advocate. The people I am close to don't feel the need to dominate others because the starting point is different: acting civilly and with virtue is just a good thing to do outside of the possible benefits you might get.
-- Related to this point, the philosophies often espoused are very often narrowly utilitarian. That is, acting in a certain way is only justified because of the results YOU will get. This is ethically bankrupt.
-- A very small proportion of the gurus have long term girlfriends, wives or families. This is fine on the grounds that might be what they want. However, digging a little a deeper, and I get the sense that there is a lot of sexual addiction for the 'successful' guys in the community. Also, it seems the material teaches you to get the girl, but not keep her. It would be interesting to read some retrospectives in 20 years time though.
-- A lot of the material is canned, even in so called 'natural game'. You learn what to say, what not to say, what to do in certain situations, what not to do in others, what to wear, what personalities to have, what jokes to tell etc. Although there is attraction in a rigid system and dogma for ease of learning, it is very robotic and hollow. Do you want to show women who YOU are, or what some guy has told you to be?
-- There is a limited pool of useful information; a lot of gurus recycle other people's information as well as there own, just in slightly different packaging.
-- I think there is also a claim here to preying on male insecurity as women's gossip and fashion magazines partly do to women. The situation is often set up as such: "Are you too: bald, fat, insecure, old, tall, short, poor, inept, sexually stunted etc." ... And the solution is of course to buy the latest material .... 'then I can teach you how to meet any women you want, all in the space of 200 pages!"
Whilst there is no doubting that SOME of the stuff works, especially for people who are on the shy side, I would suggest to anyone seriously considering getting deeper into the material to take it with a 'pinch of salt'. That's my take on the pick up scene. |
I can counter all of this with a simple rebuttal;
statistics
All of your points are for statistically low probability events.
A geek with a beautiful girl? Sure, so long as he has money. There are other things to take into account, but even if one gets lucky, nature wins over the long runs and she will cheat on and/or drop him in the long run.
Also, being ethically dubious has no baring on effectiveness.
This is an odds game, some people can do the opposite and beat the odds, but just like going to the casino, the house always wins. You are assuming everyone can win the dating lottery, which is naive.
Also, there is not such thing as a "sex addict". We are born for that purpose specifically.
Last edited by laguna on Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a great post, neil. You've nicely laid out and summed up some of my inchoate suspicions about the Game. But without going too far and rejecting the genre entirely.
Just a few additions.
| Quote: |
| Pushing it to its logical conclusion, you should be able to walk up to ANY woman, ANY time and push the right buttons. This is clearly not the case. In a move of (to me) astounding illogicality, many of the systems state, or their gurus confess that "some women just don't want to be picked up and you just gotta improve your odds by learning the material." |
Usually in the Game, they are out at pick-up spots and bars. There will often be one of these women available.
Secondly, the PUAs put a lot of time into their method. Perhaps not the 10,000 hour rule, but they develop their game intensely. They are going to do well. And yes, they do a sales job. You see Strauss explicitly mention this. And you're getting jobbed a bit as you read. But its compelling stuff.
| Quote: |
| Related to this point, the philosophies often espoused are very often narrowly utilitarian. That is, acting in a certain way is only justified because of the results YOU will get. This is ethically bankrupt. |
Yes, this is bubble-mentality-ethics LA-superficial-style. There's something really slimy going on in the book, for example, when Strauss lays out the Mystery Method "if the target is with one of the guys, find out how long they've been together. If it's a serious relationship, eject politely by saying, 'Pleasure meeting you,'" but then later Strauss describes how incredible Mystery is by proclaiming "he even made out with targets in front of their boyfriends."
| Quote: |
digging a little a deeper, and I get the sense that there is a lot of sexual addiction for the 'successful' guys in the community |
Not really sex addicts but complete narcissists who need constant affirmation and gratification. But they're PUAs all the same, so they still get my respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neilsputnik
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laguana,
That is a cynical response. And you will protest to be realist. Also, I am not sure all the points can be rebutted with statistics. Show me how many gurus have long terms g.fs or wives. I would be interested in the statistics and await your next post in supplying them. Further, a few of my points stressed more philosophical issues and thus can't be wholly rebutted by statistics.
You claim that the techniques are effective. Sure, and as I was at pains to stress, some of the stuff works, but there is a whole lot of stuff more than end results, as my post was mostly an attempt to show. I respectfully suggest that I don't think you engaged with the main issues I was writing about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neilsputnik
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laguna wrote: |
| neilsputnik wrote: |
I never had a problem meeting women nor sustaining long term relationships, but I stumbled onto 'The Game' from a (female) friend weirdly enough. I found it initially very amusing, these wacky characters on some alternative lifestyle trip. Strauss is a good writer too.
Since then, I have read a lot of the material out there, spanning most of the 'systems'. I used to think it was great and very funny stuff, and although there is a good side in purportedly helping guys with no social skills, it quickly becomes apparent that a lot of this stuff is marketing hype, as well as ethically dubious at best.
-- A lot of the theories are based on an narrowly circumscribed evolutionary theory of humans. "Push the right buttons, and she will be 'hardwired' to respond." This is faulty namely because it doesn't take into account the role of real life personality differences and situations, culture, ideals, nor intellect. To me, there is something missing painting humans as the sum of their DNA. Further, a lot of mating and flirting rituals are culturally formed, and transform culturally, so I am not sure that I agree with the hard core evolutionary argument often implicit in much of these theories. Pushing it to its logical conclusion, you should be able to walk up to ANY woman, ANY time and push the right buttons. This is clearly not the case. In a move of (to me) astounding illogicality, many of the systems state, or their gurus confess that "some women just don't want to be picked up and you just gotta improve your odds by learning the material."
-- -- A realist response is that the techniques work so it must be hardwired responses. However, the information that isn't revealed is the ratio of success to failure. It might be the case that certain women respond differently to different guys, and if so, it appears to be some other variable accounting for success or failure than tapping into the hardwired responses.
-- It doesn't account for different types of people meeting each other. For instance, the theories assume that geeky (or insert any pejorative term) guys cannot meet attractive women. However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that geeky guys can meet other geeky women, and geeky guys can meet (attractive or otherwise) women who like geeky guys.
-- A lot of systems seem to be about borderline manipulation. If you get into the material, you will hear a lot about 'frame control', 'alpha males', 'dominance' and such. To me, these are just euphemisms for doing what you want to whomever you want merely for the purposes of being 'attractive'. Whilst this may be an aspiration for some, it is not something I need nor advocate. The people I am close to don't feel the need to dominate others because the starting point is different: acting civilly and with virtue is just a good thing to do outside of the possible benefits you might get.
-- Related to this point, the philosophies often espoused are very often narrowly utilitarian. That is, acting in a certain way is only justified because of the results YOU will get. This is ethically bankrupt.
-- A very small proportion of the gurus have long term girlfriends, wives or families. This is fine on the grounds that might be what they want. However, digging a little a deeper, and I get the sense that there is a lot of sexual addiction for the 'successful' guys in the community. Also, it seems the material teaches you to get the girl, but not keep her. It would be interesting to read some retrospectives in 20 years time though.
-- A lot of the material is canned, even in so called 'natural game'. You learn what to say, what not to say, what to do in certain situations, what not to do in others, what to wear, what personalities to have, what jokes to tell etc. Although there is attraction in a rigid system and dogma for ease of learning, it is very robotic and hollow. Do you want to show women who YOU are, or what some guy has told you to be?
-- There is a limited pool of useful information; a lot of gurus recycle other people's information as well as there own, just in slightly different packaging.
-- I think there is also a claim here to preying on male insecurity as women's gossip and fashion magazines partly do to women. The situation is often set up as such: "Are you too: bald, fat, insecure, old, tall, short, poor, inept, sexually stunted etc." ... And the solution is of course to buy the latest material .... 'then I can teach you how to meet any women you want, all in the space of 200 pages!"
Whilst there is no doubting that SOME of the stuff works, especially for people who are on the shy side, I would suggest to anyone seriously considering getting deeper into the material to take it with a 'pinch of salt'. That's my take on the pick up scene. |
I can counter all of this with a simple rebuttal;
statistics
All of your points are for statistically low probability events.
A geek with a beautiful girl? Sure, so long as he has money. There are other things to take into account, but even if one gets lucky, nature wins over the long runs and she will cheat on and/or drop him in the long run.
Also, being ethically dubious has no baring on effectiveness.
This is an odds game, some people can do the opposite and beat the odds, but just like going to the casino, the house always wins. You are assuming everyone can win the dating lottery, which is naive.
Also, there is not such thing as a "sex addict". We are born for that purpose specifically. |
The point about sex addiction. Yes, that is why we have something called culture. It is an attempt at civilizing some of our baser instincts and to view us a sex machines misses the whole evolution of humans entirely in terms of rationality, democratic systems, language etc. If you want to view yourself as some sort of machine, by all means, but don't go passing this off as fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
