You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.
She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.
Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.
Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.
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.
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...
Attraction runs on a clock.
She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.
The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."
One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.
Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near 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.
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
You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.
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![]()