revolutionnow
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
Madman or truth seeker
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.
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.
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.
I actually think that he has a fairly narrow focus of what he talks about. He seems to deliberately only make the points that can be backed up by research, and doesn't like to go beyond that. There was another video on here somewhere of him being interviewed by a female who kept trying to bait him by making broad accusations, but he kept pointing out that he had not said that. He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.I think he might have gotten in over his head. He started filming all his lectures a long time ago, and put them up on YouTube and was asking for donations via patreon. Then one thing led to another and now he's more famous than I think he ever thought he'd be. Most of the stuff he says regarding sosuave type stuff is common sense. I think he leans a little too heavily on the Jungian archetype stuff, sometimes confusing metaphor for reality.
I think that sticks to him because of christianity. Otherwise, you could always learn sth from listening to him, I think.he is blue pill
brilliant.... but ultimately blue pill
That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.
Dinner ran three hours. She laughed at everything. You walked her to her car thinking this one's locked in.
Then: nothing. Two texts. No reply. What happened?
You did what most men do on a great date. You filled every silence, answered every question, and left her with nothing to wonder about. No mystery. Nothing to sit with when she got home.
Rule 3 of the "22 Rules" changes the ending: tell her a little, hold back the rest, and let her imagination do the chasing. The ghosting stops too.
Well, maybe I haven't seen those videos. The videos that I have seen with him, most of them are very repetitive, and the things he said in them didn't strike me as being esoteric or controversial. Seems to me he just sort of stuck to what he knew.That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.
Rolla says the same thing. That he likes him/his views but a lot of what he says his steeped in blue pill idealization. Rollo did the opposite of you: he wrote a 500 page essay to explain why (I think there's a two hour video interview with him and two other "red pillers" where they basically talk about Jordan Peterson. No time or desire to read/listen to that much chatter about why they disagree with the man/think he's blue pill. Where as you don't really expand or express adequately why you think he's blue pill.no.
its because his philosphies are too idealistic.
if you pay close enough attention, he doesnt nearly address reality as much as it seems.
his ideas remind me more of the beta kid who promised himself to "never be like his father"
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.