One of the most powerful changes you can make:
Resolve that, before you get to sex, you are not especially intelligent, you are not especially funny, you are not cultured, you are not rich... you have the least possible number of noteworthy positive characteristics NOT related to sex.
What you ARE is manly, confident, sexual, tempting, discreet, passionate... all the things that women think of when they think of hot sex and making out.
Basic Rule: If hot, steamy sex/kissing and "X" don't go together, absolutely do NOT present the "X" side of you until after the first sex, even if that side of you is something good.
For example, can you think of hot, steamy sex in the same thought as a funny joke? If you can, does the joke diminish the power of the sexual image? If so, save it until after you've had sex with her for the first time.
As you're meeting someone, you can only present a few sides of you. Present only the sides that are consistent with hot, passionate kissing and sex.
Now I know there are some hard-headed guys out there who will need this point nailed into them over and over again before they get it. This goes against just about every message society and even "pickup advice" columns send nowadays, but let me assure you it's one of the simplest and most powerful contrarian bits of tech-wisdom you'll ever find.
Most guys don't realize that their wealth, their car, their nice apartment, their high-status job, their intelligence, and so on are actually making things so much harder for them. Or rather, the fact that they emphasize these things holds them back.
This is a tough one to parse, because in fact some of these things actually do help in terms of providing opportunities to meet certain high-class women. Opportunities do matter, but they are not nearly as important as how people perceive you.
This gets even more insidious when you take into account golddiggers and other women taken to shallow endeavors with men. Occasionally some girls will even fuck for money, dinners, status... But this is not the life I hope you're after. This is a depressing life filled with high-priced prostitutes, IF by some miracle things actually go that smoothly. Most guys fall in love with such women and end up ruining themselves in short order, even if they started out wealthy and sane.
Back to the point: these things HURT you, not help you. Think of truly hot sex and passion - the very thick of the fray of the act itself - where does money, status, culture, or Mercedes fit into that picture? They simply do not.
This is not to say "present yourself as a poor, underclass, lout" - all those things ALSO detract from the image of passionate making out and sex. Are you guys getting the picture yet? Let me spell it out for you once again:
You want to be UNREMARKABLE in every way, EXCEPT as related to PASSIONATE KISSING AND SEX. In aspects directly related to sex, you leave a deep impression on her.
The results of this are that, in her mind,
YOU = SEX
and nothing else special of note. Nothing else to distract from that singular image. Counterintuitive as it may be, "sexual" is always better than "sexual and rich." She remembers you as the passionate one, the tempting one, the manly one, the hot one, the one who knows what he wants and goes for it, the one who rocks women's worlds, the one who is in control, the one who is sexually experienced, the one who makes no excuse for his desires when the time comes, the one who is ready and able when her need strikes.
There will be plenty of time to get to know all sides of each other after the animal lust side of things is out of the way. Before that, focus on the passionate aspects only. Simple!
P.S., once you get to the first sex, you can drop this whole thing if you want to. It's simply a tool for raising the chances to get to sex, after which - as I always talk about - you generally have broad choice to lead the relationship in whatever way you choose.
P.P.S., Note once again that although all this looks like it's aimed at guys who just want sex, nothing could be further from the truth. The fastest, surest, most secure, and strongest path to love is through fast sex. You'll never see a girl fall in love as hard or as deep as she does for a man who takes her sooner and better than anyone else ever has. This is just biology. We don't make the rules, but we ought to learn to work with them. If you have instinctive mental or moral opposition to the this basic fact, take the time to think this through and investigate. If you're at all skeptical of this fact, this investigation is not optional. Sooner or later you'll have to face this fact and come to grips with it. Only then can you gain real control over your interactions with women.
30/01/2008, 15:20
Back, and it`s about time I start exploring your ideas here. I`m gonna start with the Foundations part. And then get into this post, and then hopefully weave them both for a more cohesive inquiry.
Foundations:
I haven`t done any research on the Psychology of Achievement, and I`m sure it`s effective to some degree, but right now, I won`t get into it.
Now, I`m confused on your usage of the word `success` and I find that your meaning vacillates frequently here, especially when we consider the theme of your blog. I think this blog is first and foremost and guide on how to be `successful` with women, is it not? In this case, what does Mystery`s personal failures have to do with his success with women, or fame, or money? From what I`ve read so far, he is `more` successful than you, and can probably lay more chicks than you ever will, which, in this case, shouldn`t be an affront to your own personal lifestyle, seeing as you`re building success from the `ground-up`. However, you twist up the meaning of `success` and imply that Mystery is not as successful as you because he is, as you charge, `not happy`. But to stay consistent with the meaning of the word `success` in the case of a seducer, he is successful, notwithstanding the fact that he is not happy. You might say that his depression might be a detriment to his relationships--well, as long as he is giving value to the girl in the form of social fun and sexual pleasure, then what does his depression have to do with anything? Sure, as a human, he is not `successful`, but as a seducer, he is on top of his motherfucking game. I won`t buy into the fact that your relationships are more deeper than the relationships that Mystery shares with other women, because you`ve admitted that most of your relationships don`t last longer than 3 months--because you get bored. I don`t have to be a poet of Kierkegaardian caliber to know that boredom and depth don`t really share the same living space. The only difference between you and Mystery is that your relationships are essentially protracted one-night stands. This is nothing to be shameful of, considering that you have a slight capacity for earnestness and that you are a top-notch seducer. You can argue that your style of seduction brings much more positive effects, but I can also say that Mystery`s seduction style also brings good effects, because it compels the women he meets to meet men of higher caliber than him, which I would think is far and few in between.
I think foundation (and who is to say that Mystery does not work from the ground up?) is superfluous when it comes to seduction. There are happy seducers, and there are, as you charge, clinically depressed ones. But seducers they are all the same. Now, I`m gonna make a huge inductive leap here--you might be the top seducer in the world right now, who knows?--but guys like Tyler Durden and Mystery can probably lay more girls than you ever can and can probably steal your girls as well. These guys seduce head-strong American girls--you on the other seduce malleable Japanese women, whose conception of a shit-test is defined as something you only see in scat porn, heh. Now, you being the better person probably wouldn`t care that they get more girls than you, but if they hypothetically can, you`d say to yourself that it doesn`t matter cause you`re happy on a foundational level. But this begs the question: what does being happy have to do with getting women? If you cannot gain intrinsic happiness from laying women, and if laying women is the theme of this blog, then what does building a foundation whereby one`s happiness is ensured have to do with anything? Also, if it is possible that you can be happier than someone who has more choice in women than you, then it must be also possible that the man who is celibate or hasn`t been laid can be happier than you, no? In fact, why seduce at all if it does not bring you intrinsic happiness and depth in your relationships?
Now on to your next blog:
In some sense, I agree with the fact that sex will increase the intimacy between you and the girl. But I still don`t see how simply having sex with a girl will establish rock-solid connections. You bring up the point of biology, and seeing as I am a scholar, I would like for you to corroborate your claims about biology and courtship. This might be a daunting task for you, but I don`t really appreciate it when laypeople make casual references to authority like it`s gospel and then bolster your argument without demonstrating real support. I know this is just a blog, but that should be no excuse for you to wrongly make appeals to an authority that you most don`t have a solid enough grasp on. It`s not optional to be skeptical of this fact? Well, it`s also not optional for you to make an egregious claim without setting up argumentative foundation for it.
You`ll say it`s field-tested--well, if sex is the fastest, most surest, most securest way to love, then why is it that the longest you stay with a girl is 3 months? Fast? Sure. Sure? Don`t know. Secure? Does the girl feel secure after you get bored of her and you leave her? Strong? Sure, maybe if you compare 3 months to a one night stand! In your perspective, you have gained the affection of the girl, possibly forever, but what is love when you can`t reciprocate her affections and you are too busy with other worthwhile women? You call that secure? Sure, perhaps from your perspective, but then again, that turns the game into some egoistic undertaking, which is what you are trying work against, I believe. Secure? When both of you mutually agree to split after agreeing that you two have fallen out of love (in this case, would you consider this eros or philia?)? Secure? What`s so secure about leaving the girl on her own to look for every nook and cranny for a man that has won her affections and is willing to keep it?
You mention that being passionate and tempting and cool and manly and all that is what you want to reveal to the girl. Again, what does this have to do with being a happy seducer? I think this is what Mystery, Tyler, and the rest of those guys are aiming for, I think this is what you call `technique`. If this is your `foundation` then I`d be afraid to see how you would act around your mother HAH!
Sorry for being thorough, I am still considering seduction and it seems like a viable art, but I still see a lot of confusion in this social practise. I`d like to, if possible, clear all the cobwebs out.
30/01/2008, 18:21
Iconoclast,
Welcome back. Continuing from the previous discussion...
----------Now, I`m confused on your usage of the word `success` and I find that your meaning vacillates frequently here, especially when we consider the theme of your blog. I think this blog is first and foremost and guide on how to be `successful` with women, is it not? In this case, what does Mystery`s personal failures have to do with his success with women, or fame, or money?---------
If you have deep-seated issues with women yet are able to lay them easily, is that a good or bad thing? If that is success for some of my readers, those particular readers may indeed be better served by reading Mystery.
--------From what I`ve read so far, he is `more` successful than you, and can probably lay more chicks than you ever will, which, in this case, shouldn`t be an affront to your own personal lifestyle, seeing as you`re building success from the `ground-up`.--------
I'm not building success from the ground up - I've already done that. What I meant was that my method (of teaching) is about building success from the ground up.
---------However, you twist up the meaning of `success` and imply that Mystery is not as successful as you because he is, as you charge, `not happy`. But to stay consistent with the meaning of the word `success` in the case of a seducer, he is successful, notwithstanding the fact that he is not happy.-------
I think I have pretty clearly explained what success is for me. Different people will indeed define it in different ways as is convenient for them or for conversation at hand.
-------You might say that his depression might be a detriment to his relationships--well, as long as he is giving value to the girl in the form of social fun and sexual pleasure, then what does his depression have to do with anything? Sure, as a human, he is not `successful`, but as a seducer, he is on top of his motherfucking game.--------
Readers who would trade happiness for "game" are free to take that route.
---------I won`t buy into the fact that your relationships are more deeper than the relationships that Mystery shares with other women, because you`ve admitted that most of your relationships don`t last longer than 3 months--because you get bored. I don`t have to be a poet of Kierkegaardian caliber to know that boredom and depth don`t really share the same living space. The only difference between you and Mystery is that your relationships are essentially protracted one-night stands. This is nothing to be shameful of, considering that you have a slight capacity for earnestness and that you are a top-notch seducer. You can argue that your style of seduction brings much more positive effects, but I can also say that Mystery`s seduction style also brings good effects, because it compels the women he meets to meet men of higher caliber than him, which I would think is far and few in between.-------
Relationships are a pretty private matter, so I'll have a hard time convincing you or anyone of why I feel I am (sometimes) able to make very deep connections with women, and why their being ephemeral does not make them any less real or deep. But the main thing you might consider is that filtering out a lot of mental baggage when interacting with someone, not being able to open yourself completely due to insecurities, etc... these things are not the most conducive to forming deep connections.
I've been with many women and it's easy to detect the signs of low self-esteem or deep-seated issues in a woman. If it is bad enough it can be detected almost within seconds of meeting. I can't even begin to describe all the problems such issues create in trying to build a connection. Sex itself is easy to get to, generally, but the free and open part that leads to really great, healthy sex is very hard to achieve. Now if both parties have issues like that, it's going to be even more of quagmire. That isn't to say deep connections cannot be made, but rather that what happens if deep connections are made is that the insecurity of one or both partners drives them to do unwise things, or to close up out of fear, or destroy the relationship before it can get off the ground. The almost-inevitable result is a painful breakup, or worse.
---------I think foundation (and who is to say that Mystery does not work from the ground up?)-------
He learned magic, then seduction skills, all the while his foundation remained shot full of holes. This is documented in the Game.
-------is superfluous when it comes to seduction. There are happy seducers, and there are, as you charge, clinically depressed ones. But seducers they are all the same.-------
They are all engaged in seduction, yes.
--------Now, I`m gonna make a huge inductive leap here--you might be the top seducer in the world right now, who knows?--but guys like Tyler Durden and Mystery can probably lay more girls than you ever can and can probably steal your girls as well. These guys seduce head-strong American girls--you on the other seduce malleable Japanese women, whose conception of a shit-test is defined as something you only see in scat porn, heh. Now, you being the better person probably wouldn`t care that they get more girls than you, but if they hypothetically can, you`d say to yourself that it doesn`t matter cause you`re happy on a foundational level. But this begs the question: what does being happy have to do with getting women? If you cannot gain intrinsic happiness from laying women, and if laying women is the theme of this blog, then what does building a foundation whereby one`s happiness is ensured have to do with anything?---------
This is answered above and in the past three articles. I could expound, but there is no reason to complicate what is so already so simple. In short, the more you satisfy women, the more (and the better) women you'll get to satisfy. And, if you don't have yourself reasonably sorted out, you're not really ready to play in the game of sexual life. You'll end up getting hurt or hurting others, and just exacerbating the situation. It's kind of like asking why so many famous and rich people ending committing suicide - fame can fuck your head. Power can fuck your head. Success with woman can, too. That's why a strong foundation is needed. On the positive side, that foundation frees you from encumbrances so you can go on to do really amazing things in you interactions with women. Sexually, relationship-wise, even personally.
---------Also, if it is possible that you can be happier than someone who has more choice in women than you, then it must be also possible that the man who is celibate or hasn`t been laid can be happier than you, no?--------
Certainly. All things in balance. If you're wondering if I would benefit happiness-wise from even greater choice with women, the answer is "probably yes, all things being equal."
--------In fact, why seduce at all if it does not bring you intrinsic happiness and depth in your relationships?--------
If it didn't, I wouldn't.
I think all these things will become clearer with further consideration and reading of what I've already written. If questions still remain (and of course that would be natural), please ask away.
--------Now on to your next blog:
In some sense, I agree with the fact that sex will increase the intimacy between you and the girl. But I still don`t see how simply having sex with a girl will establish rock-solid connections.--------
Not connections in the sense of deep body-and-soul connections - no, I think music and plain old French kissing are better for that, or even just talking, joking around, etc. can help with that.
What sex will very often do (under certain circumstances*) - to a woman - is make her fall in love very quickly and very deeply (and, certain signs in my experience indicate, very permanently).
*I've described these circumstances before, but generally they are that the sex runs counter to her usual behavior (most commonly it happens much faster than she is used to allowing), and that that usual behavior of her was highly valued in her mind, as well as that the sex was at least pretty good and nothing else extremely undermining the love response happened. The Consistency Principle of Professor Robert Cialdini at Texas A&M University explains the first phenomenon pretty well, but I have no need for scientific explanations myself when I can simply speak from pure experience with well over 100 women. When these conditions are met, the results have almost always been as I stated. It's one of the most consistent and reliable phenomena I've come across.
-------You bring up the point of biology, and seeing as I am a scholar, I would like for you to corroborate your claims about biology and courtship. This might be a daunting task for you, but I don`t really appreciate it when laypeople make casual references to authority like it`s gospel and then bolster your argument without demonstrating real support. I know this is just a blog, but that should be no excuse for you to wrongly make appeals to an authority that you most don`t have a solid enough grasp on. It`s not optional to be skeptical of this fact? Well, it`s also not optional for you to make an egregious claim without setting up argumentative foundation for it.-----
How about if I had said, "This seems to just be biology"? I'm not attempting to appeal to science, just noting that it appears to be a "hard-wired" response. I'm betting that's what the average lay person will read into that line - which saves on readability as well, and seeing as this blog is for the lay person I see no issue here.
Further questions and comments are welcome.
01/02/2008, 11:01
Why sincerity? What does sincerity have to do with pickup?
01/02/2008, 11:20
Sir Chomps-a-lot,
Sincerity = genuineness. Now when you are unfailingly genuine, it tends to show through to people and to cut through their ingrained patterns.
For example, if you appear very genuinely grateful when you thank someone, they will be affected by it a whole lot more than if you just say thank you perfunctorily.
What does this have to do with pickup? I'd kind of like to distance myself and this blog from "pickup" as that word no longer means what it used to mean, as the community of guys who do "pickup" has changed so much as to be beyond recognition.
But it does have a lot to do with getting the kind of sex and romance life many guys would like to have.
In a nutshell, genuineness wins people over because it is "real" interaction in a world where almost everything can be fake interaction. Sexual genuineness wins women over sexually.
This is an unseen an unappreciated aspect of "pickup" (the word is still too convenient to drop), yet it is one of the most important. People can keep up the fakery all the way through to sex, and that's probably why people have a hard time keeping an erection, women don't cum, etc. People don't even notice that they're not interacting with someone genuinely, and that that is making it impossible to get on the same wavelength as the other person.
Now what do I mean by "genuine" and "sincere"? It's not an admonition to tell the truth. It's not a admonition to reveal every side of yourself. I can't explain perfectly what it is, but if you think of the difference between a genuine "thank you" to a service person and a perfunctory one, and extrapolate from there, you'll be on the right track.
The immediate result is that your words and actions take on a "real" flavor, and if there's anything chicks go for more than anyone realizes, it's guys that are "real." Sort of a hard-to-pin-down concept, but ponder it and I'm sure it'll make sense after a few days.
The best ideas are the ones that are the hardest to explain, that you have to actually discover for yourself.
01/02/2008, 14:05
Amanojack,
Who said anything about deep-seated issues with women? You`ve already established that Mystery has deep-seated issues with himself, now he has deep-seated issues with women? The fact of the matter is, he gets laid, possibly more than you do or ever will. Isn`t this the point of your blog? Isn`t `getting with J-girls` the title of yoru blog?
===Different people will indeed define it in different ways as is convenient for them or for conversation at hand.===
Right, just as you have. You have quite a way with deftly avoiding the issue, which is why I believe you are skilled in this seduction business. Check this:
===He fucks models, but has severe clininal depression and all sorts of mental issues that I don't even want to imagine how they impinge on his sexual and romantic relations. That's not success in my book.===
Here, you admit that Mystery gets laid. But then you turn that around and imply that getting laid alone is not success in your books.
But ...
===More and more I realize it's not the techniques as much as the foundation that have made me successful. Building from the ground up is the fastest and surest way to success with women.===
Now you imply that success is something that involves women, perhaps sexual success? I would understand that you say this because it is in keeping with the theme of your blog, but you gotta stay consistent man, or, as you PUA`s say, congruent. The fact of the matter is, both you and Mystery at the core are after the same things. He uses `techniques`--as you would probably categorize--whereas you come in with a more natural, foundational game. Well, it almost sounds like you are using your `foundation` as a technique, which is arguably much more powerful than `outer` game, to lay more girls. In the end, it doesn`t matter cuz both of you are going for what makes you happy: sex with women!
===Relationships are a pretty private matter, so I'll have a hard time convincing you or anyone of why I feel I am (sometimes) able to make very deep connections with women, and why their being ephemeral does not make them any less real or deep. But the main thing you might consider is that filtering out a lot of mental baggage when interacting with someone, not being able to open yourself completely due to insecurities, etc... these things are not the most conducive to forming deep connections.===
Riddle me this, AJ. Does the fact that you get bored with your chicks after 3 months of sex with them really indicate that you two shared something deep? A brilliant friend of mine once defined depth as an escape from routine. Very earthy saying. Yet, it almost sounds as though this is what is occuring in your relationships. They become routine, and you get bored. The new, the spontaneous, the mysterious, in short, the deep...it never gets boring. We can have a thorough argument about the connotation of the word deep, but I`m sure an honest reflection on the word will have you agreeing with me.
===And, if you don't have yourself reasonably sorted out, you're not really ready to play in the game of sexual life. You'll end up getting hurt or hurting others, and just exacerbating the situation.===
Quite untrue. Sexual life entails that sex is casual, albeit with some degree of depth, so a level of committment is not required for those involved in the act. Of course, you have to have some connection with the person you`re having sex with--nobody has sex with anyone if there is no emotional connection between the two. Unless of course you`re a porn star, where you`re required to have sex with someone who you may even hate. So to defend Mystery, he has sex and enjoys the connection, but he is realistic enough to break it off with a girl when things get boring or things go sour. In this case, he leaves the girl better off, because he offered her the value of pleasurable sex and emotiosn. In this case, someone like Mystery is `ready` for the sexual life, so long as he adopts this paradigm, which, as I have demonstrated above, not too far from how you see sexual involvement with Japanese girls.
===If it didn't, I wouldn't.
I think all these things will become clearer with further consideration and reading of what I've already written. If questions still remain (and of course that would be natural), please ask away.
===
Actually, as far as I am concerned, things are quite unclear. I think you really are obfuscating the issue here, or you are unclear yourself on your stance in Pick-Up. Let`s backtrack for a minute, and do this methodically and logically. First of all, you say that you wouldn`t want to trade places with Mystery, even if he bangs more girls than you do.
So:
1) AmanoJack believes that Mystery is not happy, even having laid all these girls
thus
2) AmanoJack then believes that one cannot be happy from laying a lot of girls.
Therefore,
AmanoJack believes there is no intrinsic happiness to be derived from seduction.
You even support this in your latest blogs--you talk a lot about foundation, not realizing that the fact that you need foundation supports the thesis that there is no intrinsic happiness to be derived from seduction. I`m guessing that you see foundation as the, well, foundation to happiness. So if you are happy already and seduction doesn`t bring any intrinsic happiness, then why seduction in the first place? Sure you have the freedom to choose seduction, but why on earth would it matter if one has to have foundation before one can do Pick-Up when one can already be successful in Pick-Up? Consider this analogy: some men wanted to go to China. One was foolish, and the other was wise. One travelled to China with a boat that had a small hole in it. Although the ride was rocky and dangerous, he was able to make it. The other one travelled to China with a sturdy steamer boat, its architecture air-tight. He made it as well. Now that they were both successful in making it to China, does the fact that they both came to China through different means--one superior and one inferior--matter at this point?
I suggest you read this carefully and take my logic seriously because I see a lot of confusion in this Pick-Up thing, irregardless of my fascination with it.
===How about if I had said, "This seems to just be biology"? I'm not attempting to appeal to science, just noting that it appears to be a "hard-wired" response. I'm betting that's what the average lay person will read into that line - which saves on readability as well, and seeing as this blog is for the lay person I see no issue here.===
Of course you are. Otherwise, what you`re writing would have no veracity, no authority. I can tell by the way you write, you want people to take you seriously about your advice for Pick-Up--this is possibly the only thing going for you--and this is probably why you appeal to science. If you were to just say `sex makes people fall deep into love` without anchoring it in a respected body of ideas, then you`d feel that your ideas will fall apart and people won`t respect your advice. I`m just trying to help you out here and help you be congruent with your seriousness. So if you want to be serious, don`t be casual about the words your choose. Guys like me are serious about this, as I am serious about discovering what my true self is. I would appreciate a brief reference to a body of work--that way I can check it out and read it for myself, to see whether you have interpreted the work disingenuously.
Thank you for generously replying to me, and I would like for you to really think about the issues I laid out. I mean, I`m sure you really care about the reader by writing all this for us--it would demonstrate real affection for the reader, especially if he is one considering Pick-Up as a lifestyle, if you were to honestly assess my comments your blog; either that or you`re just doing this to set yourself up as some kind of Pick-Up guru and you really don`t care about the comments of your readers.
Again, I would like for you to read my comments and honestly respond to the confusion I find in your lifestyle. Sincerity is your game....let`s play it.
01/02/2008, 19:44
@iconoclast
"Irregardless" is not a word, or as Webster would say, it's nonstandard English. Try "regardless".
As to your confusion over sex and happiness, what I think Amanojack is saying is that sex CAN bring happiness, but does not GUARANTEE it.
Deep psychological issues may eclipse over or even ruin the sex. Hopefully that clears things up for you.
03/02/2008, 02:15
Iconoclast,
I appreciate your curiosity at getting at the core of the issue. I'll attempt to make a case now that useful answers aren't likely to come in a debate-like fashion even if I did chase down all those debating points. I would like to debate also because I enjoy debating, but that's simply not what this blog is about and there would be little value for the rest of the readers in my argumentative responses to most of the points you brought up. Below I do respond to those points where I feel I can offer value to my readers. But first, let's briefly consider the nature of this discussion, which is very different from those you may be used to as a scholar.
Whatever I say on the blog only has power to convince those that view it as self-evident after considering it for a while.
In other words, there are two distinct ways people come to understand the truth of what I or perhaps anyone in this field writes:
1) The reader reflects the words against his personal experience and, sometimes, he gets an "Aha!" moment where many things he's experienced and observed suddenly snap into place catalyzed by what he read.
Now he is convinced and needs no science, no authority, not even Amanojack to tell him so. Someone could come along tomorrow and provide him iron-clad scientific proof to the contrary or I could say myself "just kidding, April fools! That whole post was fake!", and the reader will say, "Look, I don't care what you say or what science says or if it was all a joke or a typo or total bullshit. All I know is that I now have a key that unlocks all these mysteries, shows me why I've been failing, and clearly indicates how I can turn things around--and its truth is utterly obvious to me when I reflect on my experience."
If his personal experience does not lead him to think, "Ah! It's all so clear now" like that, then he should simply file it away and consider it some other time, or even discard it completely if he wants to.
This is the primary way I expect people to come to the truth about the secrets and techniques of pickup. By it's nature it requires no proof or authority or anything. It's simply a matter of the reader having a puzzle with the key piece missing and all the sudden he finds the piece. He doesn't need outside verification that it's true, because it fits perfectly, like only the truth can. This happens more than you might think in the arena of guys learning the ropes of pickup and seduction.
However, since readers' experience is unlikely to cover all the situations I talk about, many of my words will simply be filed away or discarded as mentioned above. Too bad for me, but this comes with the territory and means that one can hardly hope to sway the hardcore skeptic. However, perhaps misguidedly and needlessly, I feel the urge to include outside evidence when it seems within particularly easy reach. So the second way people get convinced of this stuff is, perhaps...
2) ...by outside evidence.
But I don't think that outside evidence is a very good way to convince people, although I admit I hadn't thought about this until you brought it up.
This all raises the question of why even include this outside stuff at all, and honestly I have just been including it without thinking of the reason why, because it's so common a practice for writers in any topic. It certainly doesn't bolster my arguments much, and to scholarly readers like yourself it may rub you the wrong way and be distracting, which maybe it has been. If this is the case, simply discard those arguments. I could remove them all and I don't think it would affect the real persuasive power of what I say very much, because - as I mentioned - it's a matter of puzzle pieces whose proof of truth is that they fit so perfectly and make the picture make so much sense. If they don't, the work of convincing readers of each and every fact would be extremely laborious and nearly impossible - a waste of everyone's time.
If something doesn't fit a given reader's puzzle, I cannot blame him for not believing. I would hope only that he not discard everything immediately but rather let it simmer on the back burner because it may yet fit in after churning in his mind for a while, or maybe with new puzzle pieces that come from subesequent experience.
In actual fact I would estimate that MOST of what the average reader finds here at any given time will prompt a reaction from him of "Interesting... I don't really see how this is true, but I'll withhold judgment for now, file it away, and maybe it'll make sense later." As they grow to trust (or distrust) my words more, they may invest more or less time pondering pieces that don't fit in, but that is entirely their prerogative. In reading anything in the world, I think this is always a safe strategy and will never lead you far astray. It's only a matter of the reader's time possibly being wasted with frivolous material - a big danger for me with my overly wordy writing style, but I can only hope there is enough to hold the interest of a sizable readership.
------Riddle me this, AJ. Does the fact that you get bored with your chicks after 3 months of sex with them really indicate that you two shared something deep?------
Depth need not have anything to do with time. Time and routine are in fact a kind of shackle that can get in the way of a truly deep and vibrant connection. Again here, it's beyond my power to convince. If a few readers hear the words I wrote and come to an epiphany based on it, the words have done their job.
-------Sure you have the freedom to choose seduction, but why on earth would it matter if one has to have foundation before one can do Pick-Up when one can already be successful in Pick-Up?-------
Let me try to clarify my points in more precise wording:
1) It's very hard to get any kind of success with women (defining "success" in any of the ways we've mentioned) without a good foundation of self-esteem, clear of major emotional baggage.
The man I mentioned is a famous example of someone who beat the odds here, so I mentioned him in passing simply because he is a famous figure many people know of. (Respect and power to him and his skills, as that is a truly amazing feat. I didn't occur to me that it would be considered an attack on him, because I believe he has stated the same about himself in the book I mentioned. )
2) Even if one makes it to the "material" (for lack of a better word) success of getting many hot women in bed, the whole exercise is unlikely to be a net gain if the foundation isn't there. This one I expect a lot of people to find hard to accept, but since I'm not here to win arguments but to facilitate understanding, my best advice is to either withhold judgement and file it away or to ask for elaboration. If it sorely rubs one the wrong way, feel free to reject it, but in this case I strongly advise reflecting on this one and listening to what the Psychology of Achievement has to say before coming to a final conclusion.
3) This happens mainly because LSE attracts LSE ([a] low self-esteem [person]).
4) I highly suspect, but am slightly less certain, that LSE people have a hard time detecting the difference between LSE-based arrogance/vanity/pushiness and real HSE (high self-esteem). This helps explain (3), as well as why LSE doesn't always repel LSE. LSE vs. HSE is also a continuum, so no absolute statements can be made, but tendencies can be noted.
All these claims are backed up, first and foremost, by the reader himself as he looks back on his personal experience. If his personal experience does not lead him in that direction he should temporarily forget it and move to the next passage. And if he finds there are too few epiphanies for him in my writing versus time spent reading, he is certainly free to seek answers elsewhere.
I believe those seeking the truth here will find it in greatest measure in the manner I've outlined in this comment.
03/02/2008, 15:30
AJ,
Thanks for being generous for your time. I appreciate the comments.
First of all, your comment about allowing the reader to come to the truth on his own terms is the task for all writers, not just your task. However, you cannot escape the rules of logic, even if the perceived truths you`ve presented have veracity
I still wonder about your commment about depth have nothing to do with time. It has everything to do with time. Everything deep thing--certain relationships, events, friendship, etc.--I`ve experienced have always held a vibrant, lingering influence over me. I would never get `bored` of its effect. The way I see it is, having a shallow passion for something equated to boredom. I can recall the time when I played drums--because it was fun--but quickly lost interest (or got bored of it) because I wasn`t DEEPly passionate about it. I wasn`t fully absorbed--the waters there were too shallow. Or I can recall individuals who had deep passions and ideals--how were they recognizable as such? Well, the level of committment they showed to these things. If you met someone who said `I am deeply passionate about writing` but then gave it up for, say, martial arts 3 months later, would you say they was something deep about his interest in writing? Hardly!
Now I`m going to reply to your 4 points:
1) Patently false. The two best PUA`s in the world are decidedly self-esteem wrecks. You know Mystery already. Tyler Durden once confessed that he suffered social anxiety and depression and Pick-Up did not help it alleviate it one bit. I know many other `naturals` that get mad pussy, and they are not exactly people who I would look to if I were to gain true confidence. These dudes live mediocre lives, but it doesn`t stop them from having a lot of SNL`s and ONS`s.
2) What does it matter? If laying women makes them happy for the moment, who cares about net gain? Is laying women for you just a matter of `net gain`? And you`re saying your relationships with women are deep? Deep and `net gain`? LOL, there is something wrong about that.
3) Pure presumption. I couldn`t count the instances where low-esteem sexual dudes would successfully bed women that are bored with their sexual lives but are otherwise confident women.
4) Highly suspect but slightly less certain? So you are certain, but are not certain? You gotta be more clear. I`d say, many HSE-people also do not detect the difference. A lot of LSE-peeps out there are quite clever with their manipulations and seduction techniques. See my comment on 3), as it undermines your point in 4). This point, as it supports 3), begs the question. By saying that LSE people cannot differentiate real confidence from false confidence, you are implicitly saying that they are attracted to peeps with LSE-based self-esteem. 3-4 is a viciously circular.
`All these claims are backed up, first and foremost, by the reader himself as he looks back on his personal experience.`
False and another presumption on your part. I`ve detailed many things in my life that indicate the opposite of the truth you`re presenting. Your logic needs quite a bit of work as well.
Let`s just put it this way AJ...you are using your foundatoin to lay women. Mystery and the rest are using techniques. In the end, it doesn`t matter because both of you are laying hot women.
In any case, thank you for your generously giving your time.
03/02/2008, 20:19
Great blog AJ!!
Now I need to disagree with your statement of "ME = SEX" , because I noticed that some girls only wanna meet me when they are horny, but reply my emails with low interest and refusing suggestion for going out.
All this girls where D1 full close and usually they write me emails like: "hey Euler, are you free tonite" or "lets watch a movie in your house"
I like to spend the time doing funny things with the girls, and after that a cool session of sex is great :D ... but only sex ALWAYS is not that fun
04/02/2008, 03:59
Euler,
Thanks! I forgot to add this important point:
The YOU = SEX thing only goes until the first sex, then you can drop it immediately if you don't like it.
I've edited the blog to reflect this now.
04/02/2008, 04:15
Iconoclast,
Hopefully the following will narrow things down to a few key points that it might be valuable to continue discussing.
------I still wonder about your commment about depth have nothing to do with time. It has everything to do with time. Everything deep thing--certain relationships, events, friendship, etc.--I`ve experienced have always held a vibrant, lingering influence over me.-----
Me, too. All the truly deep interactions I've had still do influence me. I'd even say they shape part of who I am.
-----I would never get `bored` of its effect. The way I see it is, having a shallow passion for something equated to boredom.-----
I get bored not of the depth but because of the barriers to depth that arise. Most commonly, girls come to eventually feel the need - perhaps from societal conditioning - to get me into a more committed relationship or at some some of the superficial trappings of one. So far this has always resulted in a loss of depth, whether I go along with the relationship pressure or not. Perhaps I could get past this stage and keep the depth if I were better at long-term relationship management, and in fact I have been experimenting with this in recent years. Also, there are plenty of examples where I meet women longer than three months, or even three years, but these are with a lower meeting frequency.
Also wanted to make sure people know I do have my share of shallow flings as well. I enjoy them, but not as much.
-----I can recall the time when I played drums--because it was fun--but quickly lost interest (or got bored of it) because I wasn`t DEEPly passionate about it. I wasn`t fully absorbed--the waters there were too shallow. Or I can recall individuals who had deep passions and ideals--how were they recognizable as such? Well, the level of committment they showed to these things. If you met someone who said `I am deeply passionate about writing` but then gave it up for, say, martial arts 3 months later, would you say they was something deep about his interest in writing? Hardly!-----
I agree with what you wrote here, but there is a difference between being deeply passionate for an endeavor and sharing an ephemeral yet deep connection with someone (although the words to describe these phenomena could almost be interchangeable in a casual context). In my case, although to get this deep is rare, I have experienced momentary connections so deep that I felt as one mind with the girl and came to understand her more in a few seconds than I had anyone else even over a long time. On the other hand, it is possible to be right next to someone, or even having sex with them, and still feel zero connection or understanding of them at that moment. In fact, the latter seems very common. What I'm getting at is that these very brief, very deep moments of "soul to soul" contact stay with me for a long time, perhaps for life. But the time sometimes comes when it seems better to move on, because the conditions that allowed such a connection are not easy to maintain and to try and protract things past their due time tends to result in a degradation of the interaction. I would certainly like to maintain them for longer, and that is one of my improvement goals.
------1) The two best PUA`s in the world are decidedly self-esteem wrecks. You know Mystery already. Tyler Durden once confessed that he suffered social anxiety and depression and Pick-Up did not help it alleviate it one bit. I know many other `naturals` that get mad pussy, and they are not exactly people who I would look to if I were to gain true confidence. These dudes live mediocre lives, but it doesn`t stop them from having a lot of SNL`s and ONS`s.------
I said, "It's very hard to get any kind of success with women (defining "success" in any of the ways we've mentioned) without a good foundation of self-esteem, clear of major emotional baggage."
Now you're correct that this does not apply to naturals, but it does apply to my readers, who I presume are not currrently successful with women.
As I said, Mystery beat the odds. So did Tyler. So did many of their crew. They are all exceptions to the great mass of guys who did not beat the odds, but those guys are of course not famous. It wouldn't surprise me if Mystery and Tyler's successes with pickup despite their LSE led them to "find their calling" and make it the focus of their whole career. Guys who are more well-adjusted would probably generally just enjoy their newfound success and continue with their life, having ridded themselves of the unnatural burden of AFC-hood. I like helping people, so I started the blog a year ago, and in that time I've seen the dangers of spending too much time on this stuff (that's why fewer posts recently - sorry guys :( )
------2) What does it matter? If laying women makes them happy for the moment, who cares about net gain? Is laying women for you just a matter of `net gain`? And you`re saying your relationships with women are deep? Deep and `net gain`? LOL, there is something wrong about that.------
A "net gain" in happiness. I know you want to examine this critically, but looking at the finer points of my writing style / word usage is not likely going to yield anything valuable.
Let's focus on the meat, not the minor quibbles.
04/02/2008, 11:10
LOL@Iconoclast
Dude, go back to Logic 101. AJ is right. You're trying to win a debate instead of seeking truth, and you're ending up doing neither.
It's one thing to suck at logic - but it's another thing to use flawed logic to try to attack people and then accuse THEM of being illogical.
AJ has been so patient with you it's almost sickening. Almost everything you're saying at this point is the result of you lacking reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Your arguments tear themselves to shreds without AJ even having to refute them. Let's take a look:
"4) Highly suspect but slightly less certain? So you are certain, but are not certain? You gotta be more clear."
No, he doesn't. You gotta learn to read English. And learn not to grasp for straws while you're at it.
"See my comment on 3), as it undermines your point in 4). This point, as it supports 3), begs the question. By saying that LSE people cannot differentiate real confidence from false confidence, you are implicitly saying that they are attracted to peeps with LSE-based self-esteem. 3-4 is a viciously circular."
HAHAHA!!! I do not think that word means what you think it means. A viciously circular argument is one where 3 implies 4 and 4 implies 3. Well, Mr. Scholar, 3 most certainly does NOT imply 4. 4 does imply 3, but AJ already noted that in the next line. You're muddleheaded. You think you understand logic but its' painfully obvious that you do not do not.
"`All these claims are backed up, first and foremost, by the reader himself as he looks back on his personal experience.`
False and another presumption on your part."
Grasp straws much? It's a fucking figure of speech. Are you a native English speaker? Did you read the next line. Context clues, my friend. They are the key to reading comprehension.
"I`ve detailed many things in my life that indicate the opposite of the truth you`re presenting."
You're not reading. AJ already covered this: he says if your experience doesn't agree, discard his words.
"Your logic needs quite a bit of work as well."
OK, Mr. Viciously Circular :) You're completely out of your depth here, and the worst thing is that you THINK your muddleheaded arguments are "logical."
"Let`s just put it this way AJ...you are using your foundatoin to lay women. Mystery and the rest are using techniques. In the end, it doesn`t matter because both of you are laying hot women."
You're not reading. Already covered this at least twice so far.
Let's look back at more Iconoclast Greatest Hits of Logical Muddleheadedness.
"Let`s backtrack for a minute, and do this methodically and logically."
Ha! OK, let's take a look :)
"First of all, you say that you wouldn`t want to trade places with Mystery, even if he bangs more girls than you do.
So:
1) AmanoJack believes that Mystery is not happy, even having laid all these girls
thus
2) AmanoJack then believes that one cannot be happy from laying a lot of girls.
Therefore,
AmanoJack believes there is no intrinsic happiness to be derived from seduction."
Dude, you're unable to even string together two sentences that follow a logical progression. You have not even made the most basic logical argument successfully in all your rambling. Not a single ONE! I know the average person is not always great with logic, but if you dish it you'd better be ready to take it.
Anyway, you're just embarrassing yourself here. You do not understand logical reasoning, which is fine, but never try to use that in an argument again, for your own sake. It not only lame, annoying, and utterly wrong, it is also, as AJ says, entirely pointless and will never lead anywhere even if by some miracle you actually put together a cogent logical argument.
.....
And yet, AJ refuses to attack you. He probably knows that proving you wrong would result in a clash of egos so that nothing would ever be learned from the discussion. But I've never seen someone so patient and indulgent of a confused backbiter like yourself on the Internet. He carefully avoids bruising your ego at every step of the way, even as you heap on empty accusations that most readers can probably see through instantly. On top of the illogical lameness, you act as if you had zero reading comprehension skills and then try to base your argument around the finer points of AJ's writing style. This has got to be the dumbest debating tactic I've ever seen, when it makes no sense to even be debating in the first place.
Do like AJ says and stick to the meat. I will hand it to you that at least you're civil not a troll; the trolls will have a field day with that last sentence :)
04/02/2008, 11:32
Iconoclast,
To answer 3 and 4:
"3) I couldn`t count the instances where low-esteem sexual dudes would successfully bed women that are bored with their sexual lives but are otherwise confident women."
What you said is correct, but the point is that LSE will attract other LSE more than HSE, and over time it this results in many negative interactions.
4) "I`d say, many HSE-people also do not detect the difference. A lot of LSE-peeps out there are quite clever with their manipulations and seduction techniques."
Perhaps, but the point is HSE people have much easier time discerning this than LSE people do.
Quaternion,
Attacking Iconoclast is also not going to help anyone find truth, just as his accusing me of this and that is not going to help anyone either. This is one of the lessons I'm trying to teach by replying in the way I have.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
(By the way, this applies to women as well!)
Some readers may wonder why I don't answer accusations of illogic and such, but it's kind of an odd thing to wonder: after all, don't you have a head of your own? You can detect what is logical and what is illogical for yourself. If I think someone's claims are without merit and the curious reader can easily verify this, I won't answer them. I just let them stand, rejecting them by my silence. No, I don't think the unanswered attacks undermine my argument - as I said, the truth will find those that are ready. If such things sways people, they're not ready for the truth yet, so nothing I would say would convince them.
Again, nothing happens if I am proven wrong. Nothing happens if I am shown to be a virgin who lives in his mother's basement and has never even spoken to a girl. Nothing happens if this blog is revealed to be just a psychological experiment. Nothing happens at all! The words still stand and those that find them elucidating will still find them elucidating, because they will find them SELF-EVIDENT. Then no claims of logic or veracity matter in the least. On the other hand, if someone does not find them self-evident, then even the most iron-clad science may not convince them. This is probably the last time I'll mention this (unless I forget ;) ).
04/02/2008, 14:28
QUICK NOTE: Those interested in the Psychology of Achievement should get or download the 6-CD set, NOT the shorter 2-hour version. And don't worry about the touchy-feely stuff as it can be safely ignored - separate the wheat from the chaff on your own.
04/02/2008, 18:34
Quite a phenomenon you've started here, AJ! Amazing information, rollicking debate, soul searching and more.
One question: Don't you ever feel this hurts your game to talk about this stuff? You know, it's like by telling others what you do, you're congealing something fluid and thereby damaging it. Hard to explain, but I think you'll see what I mean. It may be fruitless to try to teach this stuff to people. The data is, after all, already out there on pickupguide.com.
And Iconoclast, YOU = SEX is only for until the first sex.