Ladies and gentlemen I've cracked the code

[Clockwerk50]

Rome wasn't built in a day. Expecting the OP to suddenly become perfect after years of habits is unrealistic.

The important thing is that he's taking advice, trying new things, and moving forward with the process. That's more than can be said for a lot of people. I can count on one hand the number of posters who actually listen to feedback, apply it, and keep putting themselves out there.

 

[Plinco]

@Plinco the thing you keep missing, intentionally I'm sure due to your ego issue, is that what you think doesn't matter. What she thinks does.

This is just stupid. Thinking like this is taking a submissive posture. If a man doesn't want to go on a date with a woman then it doesn't happen, right?

@BackInTheGame78 is right. An attractive woman is infinitely more excited by Friday night drinks (which can easily lead to sex on the first meeting) than Sunday coffee (less likely). Imagine inviting her for drinks to your place - the probability of sex is near 100% if she accepts.

Women are aware of this and hence reserve those opportunities for the men they are most attracted to. You should at least plan spicy dates to gauge her interest. If you can only ever get Sunday coffee something is wrong.

There's a little bit of truth to that but if she likes you enough it doesn't matter. I've banged girls in the middle of the day lots of times.

 

[Plinco]

Rome wasn't built in a day. Expecting the OP to suddenly become perfect after years of habits is unrealistic.

The important thing is that he's taking advice, trying new things, and moving forward with the process. That's more than can be said for a lot of people. I can count on one hand the number of posters who actually listen to feedback, apply it, and keep putting themselves out there.

Yeah that was the whole texting thing I had going on. It reminds me when I went back to university several years after dropping out my sophomore year. I walked in a class where I had to pick up calculus that I hadn't used in since I dropped out and had to relearn it all from scratch. Same thing with dating. I've been out of the game for so long that I forgot how text.

 

[craider]

This is just stupid. Thinking like this is taking a submissive posture. If a man doesn't want to go on a date with a woman then it doesn't happen, right?

Being socially aware isn't the same thing as being submissive. You need to make an impression on her as some high value chad/leader/casanova type, not some desperate creep with an ego issue. Like 90% of being high value is having high EQ in the first place, so you can read women, chat them up properly, and filter out the bad ones.

And dude, rejecting cited research and acting like you know better because it makes you feel better isn't masculine. I'm not gonna get into it with you again just beware the chicas probably notice too.

 

[Plinco]

Being socially aware isn't the same thing as being submissive. You need to make an impression on her as some high value chad/leader/casanova type, not some desperate creep with an ego issue. Like 90% of being high value is having high EQ in the first place, so you can read women, chat them up properly, and filter out the bad ones.

And dude, rejecting cited research and acting like you know better because it makes you feel better isn't masculine. I'm not gonna get into it with you again just beware the chicas probably notice too.

Your 'cited research' is irrelevant to our conversation.

You're overstating emotional intelligence. You don't have to be a mind reader to get laid.


Your issue is philosophic at its core. People are rational by nature and are ends to themselves. When people act irrationally, it's not that it is in their nature, but it is a default of their nature.

I know those two sentences don't make sense to you, but let it sit with you for a while, trust your observations, and your paradigm will shift.

Let me say this another way

Everything you know conceptually is learned; you have no innate conceptual knowledge. To simplify, you have observations --> you form concepts --> you act on your convictions and principles.

 

[craider]

Your 'cited research' is irrelevant to our conversation.

It's not, you just think it is since you're a lawn tech with an ego problem.

I'm not going to explain things again, you can just refer to these resources going forward: Semmelweis reflex, Dunning-Kruger Effect.

This sort of substance-less deflection for emotional reasons is extremely feminine dude. I keep telling you it turns the chicks off but that's your problem. At the end of the day you just sound like an insecure bit who needs to get their hyper-rational masculine image validated and has to go online for that fix since women and peers won't do it for you. No different from all the boss girls who ignore the reality of their own incompetence in favor of participating in a cultural circle jerk.

You're overstating emotional intelligence. You don't have to be a mind reader to get laid.

Actually you do. If you come across as some stupid dweeb who can't take a hint you're fvcked. No amount of dancing or rationality is going to save you if the woman thinks you're too stupid to read her signals. No woman is going to make the moves for you...

Your issue is philosophic at its core. People are rational by nature and are ends to themselves. When people act irrationally, it's not that it is in their nature, but it is a default of their nature.

This sounds like the kind of nonsense that would make a woman walk away from you. I'm a pragmatic guy. That's why I'm ignoring your noise.

If you bother looking into any of the resources I provided you'll learn that humans in fact are not rational creatures, and logic itself is not sufficient to handle the complexities of the world. Not that it matters though - you irrationally cling to your beliefs for emotional reasons rather than engaging with scientific evidence.

I know those two sentences don't make sense to you, but let it sit with you for a while, trust your observations, and your paradigm will shift.

Same to you, buddy.

Everything you know conceptually is learned; you have no innate conceptual knowledge. To simplify, you have observations --> you form concepts --> you act on your convictions and principles.

This is wholly false. You should study some biology, psychology, and neuroscience before making statements like this. I think you even complimented the paper I shared showing caterpillars are able to learn and retain the concept of a specific person through metamorphosis and even across generations.

For a typical human example: you don't need to learn that women make good mates logically as some sort of new concept. The idea is so old and intrinsic to our survival strategy that you're born with it pre-programmed and experience it as an emotion.

And wouldn't you know that most human behaviors are driven by market incentives, which ultimately trace back to the desire for reproduction/survival? Really, we are very far from rational on average - we just respond to incentives and have a part of our brain that can think logically for a higher cost, and that's good enough to survive and prosper. Another resource from a Nobel prize winner if you ever wish to open your mind: Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Let me say this another way

Better not, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Bingo-Player]

Here's another one this week

This still needs a lot of work but I know what I'm doing now. I need to hit the dance floor.

With all due respect these messages would indicate you have no idea what your doing

Their just sprawling walls of text that will burn out fast none of it has much substance , charisma or wit

If you are going to message a woman it either needs to make her laugh or make her horny

If you can do neither of those do not message her

 

[Plinco]

With all due respect these messages would indicate you have no idea what your doing

Their just sprawling walls of text that will burn out fast none of it has much substance , charisma or wit

If you are going to message a woman it either needs to make her laugh or make her horny

If you can do neither of those do not message her

I'm well aware of this and I'm getting there

To do those things you mention require a state of mind that expresses them. You cannot will a state of mind into existence. You have to work to bring it out of yourself. It's like a sculptor bringing the statue out of the block of marble.

 

[Plinco]

It's not, you just think it is since you're a lawn tech with an ego problem.

I'm not going to explain things again, you can just refer to these resources going forward: Semmelweis reflex, Dunning-Kruger Effect.

This sort of substance-less deflection for emotional reasons is extremely feminine dude. I keep telling you it turns the chicks off but that's your problem. At the end of the day you just sound like an insecure bit who needs to get their hyper-rational masculine image validated and has to go online for that fix since women and peers won't do it for you. No different from all the boss girls who ignore the reality of their own incompetence in favor of participating in a cultural circle jerk.



Actually you do. If you come across as some stupid dweeb who can't take a hint you're fvcked. No amount of dancing or rationality is going to save you if the woman thinks you're too stupid to read her signals. No woman is going to make the moves for you...



This sounds like the kind of nonsense that would make a woman walk away from you. I'm a pragmatic guy. That's why I'm ignoring your noise.

If you bother looking into any of the resources I provided you'll learn that humans in fact are not rational creatures, and logic itself is not sufficient to handle the complexities of the world. Not that it matters though - you irrationally cling to your beliefs for emotional reasons rather than engaging with scientific evidence.



Same to you, buddy.


This is wholly false. You should study some biology, psychology, and neuroscience before making statements like this. I think you even complimented the paper I shared showing caterpillars are able to learn and retain the concept of a specific person through metamorphosis and even across generations.

For a typical human example: you don't need to learn that women make good mates logically as some sort of new concept. The idea is so old and intrinsic to our survival strategy that you're born with it pre-programmed and experience it as an emotion.

And wouldn't you know that most human behaviors are driven by market incentives, which ultimately trace back to the desire for reproduction/survival? Really, we are very far from rational on average - we just respond to incentives and have a part of our brain that can think logically for a higher cost, and that's good enough to survive and prosper. Another resource from a Nobel prize winner if you ever wish to open your mind: Thinking, Fast and Slow.


Better not, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is a wall of nonsense. I'm not going to respond to most of this

There's two things that I'll point out that readers can take value from

First, when you're improving something, you don't try to be someone you're not, you look for where you already have it within yourself and work to bring it out.

Second, people, (including women) assess you on how you look, and how you look has many factors, like how you feel about yourself, whether you look dangerous and fertile, whether you look like someone who she can feel safe, the amount of experience you have, etc. Emotional intelligence (pattern recognition with people) is a factor but not the most important factor. I'd say that looking dangerous and looking like someone who would make her feel safe are more potent than looking like you're emotionally intelligent.