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 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.
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.
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
I could talk to any woman I wasn't attracted to. Charming, funny, relaxed. Then a gorgeous woman looked my way and I'd become a sweating, babbling mess.
The fix took me years to find and ten minutes to learn. Nervousness and excitement are the same physical state — pounding heart, adrenaline, flushed face. Your brain just picks the label. And you can pick a better one.
Rule 16 shows you how. You feel the nerves, relabel them as excitement, and let that energy pour out as enthusiasm. Women notice the guy radiating it. They always do.
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![]()