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 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.
being naive IS NOT the downfall of being true.iqqi said:I completely resonate with this, we are the same in this way!!! I boldened my favorite parts, that I could have written myself. Don't you HATE feeling naive? At the same time, I know it is the "downfall" of being true. And... It is true, you do tend to think people are like you. Which makes me wonder about the people who see the world so negatively, by the way.
That's harsh. So you are saying me and TM are sheep, and NOT people who inherently assume people are as honest about the things we are honest about?joekerr31 said:being naive IS NOT the downfall of being true.
being ignorant / naive is not some virtue - its a bad thing. it doesn't make you TRUE, it makes you ignorant.
it also assumes that you can't be knowledgable and true at the same time - when in fact, the only way to true is to be knowledgeable. if you aren't, then you aren't being true, you're just a sheep who has been conditioned to think a certain way.
I don't think she or I are arguing those points either.joekerr31 said:being naive IS NOT the downfall of being true.
being ignorant / naive is not some virtue - its a bad thing. it doesn't make you TRUE, it makes you ignorant.
I only hate that part of myself when I actually catch someone in a lie I believed. Hahaha. If someone tells you a lie and you think it's truth because they want you to believe it, how is that bad on your part? Especially if you had no reason or evidence to believe otherwise?I even said I hated that part about myself.
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.
you're the one who said 'being naive is the downfall of being true' - which makes a clear statement that you must be naive to be true.iqqi said:That's harsh. So you are saying me and TM are sheep, and NOT people who inherently assume people are as honest about the things we are honest about?
Why do women lie?iqqi said:I am going to keep this extremely bare of a question, before I go deeper into what is on my mind. The only structure I want to give to this discussion at this point, is that I mean Man, as in men. I am well aware all people lie, but I'd like to focus on the reason men lie.
Discuss.
joekerr31 said:you know why we are in a recession? cuz a bunch of naive idiots signed up for mortgages without knowing what they were signing up for.
Weren't those rates adjustable though? Didn't people know that going into it?cordoncordon said:It's the Fed's fault for lowering interest rates to historic lows 6 years ago that allowed banks to make these outrageously risky but potentially very profitable loans.
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.
They thought that IR's would stay low for the foreseeable future. Plus they were just out for the quick buck. A lot of the housing problems were caused by flippers, people not even interested in staying in the house. That created a false market and allowed prices to skyrocket artificially. Now instead of letting the natural market forces correct the excesses, the Fed is stepping in again to try and save everything. Thing is in 2 years they will only have made things worse...again.ThunderMaverick said:Weren't those rates adjustable though? Didn't people know that going into it?
Oh quit whining.Warrior74 said:stop being little faggots and get back on topic. do that **** in pm.
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.
try pragmatism. not guilt, shame, etc.iqqi said:Ok, here is a question that is related. Spitzer was a man who lied to the People. He lied about who he was. And what he stood for (or against). But then it turns out that he was lying. What kind of lie was that. (Lets not focus on whether or not prostitution should be legal or not-this is about the lie).
Was it a lie out of guilt? Shame? And does it matter that his campaign had a lot to do with getting rid of something he supposedly was against... but was in fact doing?
cordoncordon said:Oh quit whining.
Ok, I am still interested in what others think of that.joekerr31 said:try pragmatism. not guilt, shame, etc.
if he told people he banged hookers he'd have lost his job.
i dont know why any of this is confusing to anyone. someone earlier hit it on the head - people lie out of fear or gain.
in spitzers case, it was both. he was afraid of losing his job and being publicly humiliated and he wanted to keep his job and keep making the money he was making.
although technically he never lied. i dont know of any examples where he said he didn't bang hookers - no one probably thought to ask![]()
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.