Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.
Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers. Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.
I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.
She calls you when her car breaks down. When she needs help moving. When some guy she's actually dating treats her badly.
You're the listener. The reliable one. The guy who would treat her so much better, if she'd just open her eyes.
She won't. You trained her to see you as the low-effort option — the friend who requires zero risk and zero investment. Every favor dug the hole deeper.
The "22 Rules" break the pattern. You'll stop auditioning for a role she already cast and become the man she chases instead. It starts with Rule 1.
Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...ElStud said:Someone's smart so they're a geek, nice logic there.
Because Halo3 isn't out yet.Slick101 said:...Why would you stress it to that level LOL...
Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.
Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers. Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.
I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.
And you do? Last I checked you were a keyboard jockie and you really have no proof of success.Slick101 said:Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...
Why would you stress it to that level LOL
Do you know of anyone that would think like that?
I guarantee you he doesnt have success with woman
HAHAHAHAHA....ElStud said:And you do? Last I checked you were a keyboard jockie and you really have no proof of success.
BrilliantSlick101 said:Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...
Field Reports yea...ElStud said:Hey, no need to get defensive buddy. You clearly care way too much about what one person thinks. I'm just saying you act all big without really have any proof of success. So what if your post number is lower? Some of my FIRST posts where field reports.
You've said it a hundred times. Maybe a thousand. And every time you say it, you train your brain to freeze the next time she walks into the room.
Leagues are a myth invented by guys who are scared of women.
She's a person. She has bad breath in the morning. She picks songs she can't sing in the shower. She overthinks her own texts.
Walk over. Say something. The league dissolves the second you open your mouth.
You're just trying to show up that midget rocket scientist from Moscow....comic_relief said:bump... I have a math test tomorrow and this got me in the mood to go study.
comic_relief
When a woman says it, guys hear a confession. A heads-up. A scheduling conflict.
Here's the translation: I don't feel anything. Right now. With you.
Watch what happens when a man triggers actual attraction. The busy career, the recent breakup, the "not in a place to date" — all of it evaporates instantly. The same woman who was guarding her freedom is suddenly free every night.
The "22 Rules" explain why. When the right switches flip, her timeline rearranges itself around you.
Damnit this came into my head halfway through the test and now I failed it!!!comic_relief said:bump... I have a math test tomorrow and this got me in the mood to go study.
comic_relief
ksoileau said:Your first mistake occurred when you wrote
"MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN - (Dt + Nt - T)
then, i take the partial derivative with respect to D, and N.
dMAX/dD = 1/D - t = 0 ---> t = 1/D
dMAX/dN = 1/N - t = 0 ---> t = 1/N "
You should have set up the Lagrange multiplier equation
MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN + lambda*(Dt + Nt - T)
then
dMAX/dD =1/D+lambda*t
dMAX/dN =1/N+lambda*t
Then setting
dMAX/dD=0 yields 1/D+lambda*t=0
and setting
dMAX/dN=0 yields 1/N+lambda*t=0
thus 1/D=-lambda*t=1/N
hence
D=N
Rofl this is funny because I learned how to do all this last semester in microeconomic theory.... yeah he could have used Lagrange but I think that would have made it even harder for everyone to understand :crazy:ARrocket said:Call me a nerd, but I just went through this entire thread waiting for SOMEONE to point out that he failed to use a damn Lagrange multiplier. Hello, constrained maximization...but anyway, I love this post.
Ha yeah, true story. Feels good knowing lot's and lot's of math! Also, loved the link. That one's going up on Facebook...ArcBound said:Rofl this is funny because I learned how to do all this last semester in microeconomic theory.... yeah he could have used Lagrange but I think that would have made it even harder for everyone to understand :crazy:
Reminds me of another simpler joke http://www.anvari.org/fun/Gender/Proof_that_Girls_are_Evil.html![]()