You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
Three seconds. That's how long it took. Your shoes. Your posture. The way you held your drink. Whether you looked at the floor or looked at her.
She already filed you away. Interesting. Boring. Safe. Bold. Before you even opened your mouth.
Everything you say after that is just her confirming what she already decided.
So stop rehearsing lines. Fix the first three seconds. Stand tall. Look up. Smile like you mean it. Walk like you belong wherever you're standing.
The words come later. The impression comes first.
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.
Just read that. Now reading Killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly. Very well written. 5 stars.Warrior74 said:I'm currently reading The Thoughts of The Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. I'm learning more about Stoicism. What are you reading and why?
Next on my list. Thanks. Nonfiction is the only way to go.samspade said:To End All Wars by Adam Hochschild - about WWI. Gruesome stuff.
Also, Nicholas & Alexandra by Robert Massie - about the last tsar of Russia.
Huge nonfiction buff....
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.
Julius_Seizeher said:The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius is the seminal work on Stoicism, and I thought Aurelius captured a great deal of wisdom in that book. But I always warn about Stoicism, I like the masculine Rock of Gibraltar mentality it promotes but there is a nasty streak of (what would today be known as) nihilism in it. You know, "Nothing matters, nothing is real, knowledge is impossible, blah blah". If you can read Meditations while weeding the nihilism out of it, you'll take nothing but good away from it.
I've been on a big Ayn Rand kick for about the last year, I already read most of her fiction books and I'm getting into The Virtue of Selfishness right now.
Objectively, the material world is the only one I care to live in. Rand characterized Objectivism as "A philosophy for living on earth." And she was exactly right.Warrior74 said:Yes, so I've heard. It's only fair that I warn you that Rand's objectivism has its downsides as well. It can lead to egoism and materialism.
I'll not debate it, but I will say that I've met few people in real life who follow objectivism who I thought were good and worth while people. Usually the ones I've met have massive egos and very little ability or justification for their air of superiority. It's also been hilarious when said people fall on their faces and then come crawling for help only to lash out when denied by all the people they pissed off. This has been my experience. I'm thinking of about 4 people I know personally who have followed this same script.Julius_Seizeher said:Objectively, the material world is the only one I care to live in. Rand characterized Objectivism as "A philosophy for living on earth." And she was exactly right.
Rational egoism, the supreme sovereignty of the individual mind, is the core tenet of Objectivist epistemology. The ego has always been characterized as the synonym of evil, but Rand (quite effectively) showed that the man who lives for himself, the man who values his life and his work above all else, is also the greatest benefactor of mankind. The parasites of collectivism, unwilling to bear responsibility for their own lives, dissolve their individuality into a herd and then blame the ego for the source of mankind's disasters.
We always talk about "alpha this" and "alpha that" on these boards, but I've never really bought into the prevailing definition of the alpha male, because he sounds alot like a bum I would never care to be. Nothing worth having (or being) is to be achieved as easily as the false prophets of game insinuate. Let me tell you, it was a little lady from Russia who defined the ideal man in the best, most explicit terms I have ever seen. I knew Objectivism was right because, when I first got into it, it seemed so hard to practice. But it's right, it's the only philosophy that doesn't let you have your cake and eat it too--which is metaphysically impossible.
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.
Highly agreed on the alpha stuff. I'm a big Rand fan as well, started reading her works when I was 18. Be sure to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein sometime, right up the same ideological alley.Julius_Seizeher said:We always talk about "alpha this" and "alpha that" on these boards, but I've never really bought into the prevailing definition of the alpha male, because he sounds alot like a bum I would never care to be. Nothing worth having (or being) is to be achieved as easily as the false prophets of game insinuate. Let me tell you, it was a little lady from Russia who defined the ideal man in the best, most explicit terms I have ever seen. I knew Objectivism was right because, when I first got into it, it seemed so hard to practice. But it's right, it's the only philosophy that doesn't let you have your cake and eat it too--which is metaphysically impossible.
Next Monday you'll feel more confident. After the gym you'll feel more confident. After one more drink you'll feel more confident. After you get a better haircut, a better jacket, a better job.
You've been "getting ready" for two years.
She's standing ten feet away right now. She'll be gone in four minutes. No amount of preparation will manufacture the courage that only comes from moving your feet.
Walk over. Stumble through the first sentence. Let it be clumsy. Let it be imperfect. You will feel more alive in those ten seconds than you have all month.