You replay the conversation at 2 a.m. She texted back fast yesterday. Today, nothing. Was that smile friendly or flirty? What did the shoulder touch mean?
Every hour you spend decoding her signals drains your confidence and hands her the controls. Women can sense that insecurity from across the room — and it repels them.
One of the "22 Rules" kills the obsession on the spot: assume she likes you, and act accordingly. Sounds too simple. Works anyway.
Her interest tends to rise to meet your expectations. Psychologists call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
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.
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...
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
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.
That sentence contains at least five follow-up questions she WANTS you to ask. Where in Florida? What brought you here? How long have you been in the area? What do you miss? How does it compare to here?
She handed them to you on a silver platter. And you said, "Oh cool. I come here every week. I love this band. Ummm... pretty crowded tonight."
She smiled politely. Nodded. And never texted you back.
I was that guy for years. Talking too much. Listening too little. Panicking about my next sentence while she was literally feeding me the answers.
Then I found 22 rules that fixed the whole thing. Rule number one: shut up and listen. She'll tell you exactly what to say.
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
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing 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![]()