Oh so very true.

Game will definitely make you way more neurotic, and it will almost certainly damage your social competence as well, although if you do enough “fieldwork” you stand a good chance of building some social skills by int of experience alone – however, the frame you deploy these skills from will be very maladaptive. In the long run, true game acolytes develop either full-blown aspergers or delusional sociopathy.

Game is simply an ideology, and a bad one at that. (Which begs the question of “what, if anything, constitutes a good ideology,” but that’s a topic of another day.) Yet it’s fairly obvious why game is compelling. For one, I think that the modern rates of divorce and numbers of unhappy, sexless marriages is a terrifying thing. It’s only natural for a man to want an antidote to that social poison – especially one who comes from a broken home, or had a partner cheat, or has been dumped, etc. – and game purports to offer a solution, with scientific-sounding explanations and an “us vs. them” mentality that tends to attract male minds with an analytical bent and a downtrodden slant.

For two, I think a lot of guys come upon game at low point in their life (again, broken home, cheating partner, etc.). The nice thing about hitting rock bottom is that you will almost inevitably be moving on up in the not-too-distant future. But if game gets its hooks into you at rock bottom, then the odds are good that you will mistakenly attribute this inevitable progress to the tenets of game – a giant placebo effect, as mentioned on this site. You think that game “saved you,” and by that point you might be truly irrecoverable.

Many (most?) guys eventually realize that game is bullshit. What I wonder is about the paths they take after that realization. Some, like this site and its participants, call the bullshit for what it is and move on to reality. My own path was like that. It one day dawned on me that game was a purported substitute for being good looking, confident, having status, wealth, friends, etc… well wait a second, why not just go work on that stuff and forget about game? As it happens, that made for a much more enjoyable life.

But some other guys go down the path of essentially redefining game. Now game isn’t about DHV’s and IOI’s – no, it’s about hitting the gym, building an interesting lifestyle, and having balls. I’ve seen this called “natural game.” Roosh V calls it “gameless game,” and he marks it as the ultimate destination, with his material simply being a map and a shove to help get you there (and in that regard, he’s probably the least deleterious of the gurus out there). I think this renaming is a little pointless. Why not call it “having your shit together” or “being a cool guy.” Or if you insist on calling it game, why not get specific, like “physician and amateur musician game” or “vp of engineering and triathlete game.”

The divide seems to spring up from the refusal to “go direct.” There some kind of ego investment in game that prevents guys from just walking up to girls and saying “hey I think you’re cute.” Thing is, for me at least, when I finally decided to just do that, most of my approach anxiety went away! When I think I have to say just the right things at just the right times in the just the right ways in order to have any hope of reproducing, then not only does it put a shitload of pressure on me, but it’s also in stark contrast to the way I feel most comfortable interacting with other people (that is, directly). I can’t stand it, and I doubt I’m alone in this. But for all their talk of gameless game, these clowns still cling to this notion that you have to approach indirectly, or at most, “indirectly directly” (fuckin lol).

All I can say is “show me the pussy!” What’s your close rate with any sort of game vs. just fucking talking to girls? I’m hoping that good looking loser’s post on this starts a trend where guys start sharing these stats. People denigrate Janka’s results because he’s tall and looks like a “supermodel” (lol), and I’m sure GLL will get the same flack for being tall and muscular. Optimistically, I look like Jason Statham (average height, bald, in shape, wear expensive but basic clothes), and my own overall close rate is about 5%, and I have nowhere near as much experience was GLL. But I’m not putting my face and name online so I don’t know if anyone will by that either.

Anyway. This site and GLL are hopefully the wave of the future. Keep it up. I just hope it doesn’t all wind up going to hell a la Janka and his current bullshit.

http://www.seductionmyth.com/#comment-3830

Harvard Won’t Get You Laid

You would think that somebody who has what it takes to go to Harvard would have his pick of the best women. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a bygone era, perhaps, but not in today’s post-feminist world, where empowered women don’t need a Harvard man to win the rat race. In fact, with the nature of modern college admissions – essentially an elaborate hoop-jumping routine that now starts in kindergarten – I would say elite schools select against facility with women, for the men who have made it into those hallowed halls have, by definition, spent the bulk of their lives engaged in hoop-jumping. And a man who’s primary skill is hoop-jumping will fare poorly with women (Game 101).

As for the types of women at Harvard – well, the hottest ones don’t go there. In school, the pretty girls are the popular girls. They get invited to all the parties, and asked on dates by all the boys. The not-so-pretty girls don’t have the same experience – but thanks to modern culture, they have the same unbridled hypergamy. So when they realize they can’t get the top 10% of guys at their high school, they shoot for the top 10% of colleges as a surrogate alpha. Of course, not fully understanding the nature of things, they get there and are usually astounded to see that it’s not full of alphas, but rather smart betas who are good at jumping through hoops (barring the odd athletics admission). So the hypergamy circuits kick in again, and they get the elite job, and…

More at Dalrock.

The Moral Imperative of Game

The truth is, great swathes of men get married because they have no clue what else to do, and they have somehow gotten it into their heads that – like women – they are “chopped liver” if they wind up a 30 year old bachelor. Patently ridiculous, but such is the nature of misinformation and ignorance.

I certainly see it as good for a man to be wiling to spend years sleeping around with unworthy women until he finds a good one to settle down with. The “sleeping around” is not ideal, but it keeps him sane enough to find a good woman, and sends a message to the unworthy informing them of their actual market value.

More at Dalrock.

Any Sufficiently Advanced Business is Indistinguishable from Government

The problem is thus: A society increases social complexity to solve problems, and gains some benefit thereby. But at some point, the marginal return on investment declines to the point of going negative. Then, as noted in the Charles Hugh Smith review, the institutions which generate this complexity transition from problem solving to self-preservation (this phenomenon is studied in the dismal science under the name “Public Choice Theory” and makes a great deal of intuitive sense, at the very least). We thus find ourselves in a society with excess social complexity – that is, wildly out of scale – but the institutions which provide this excess have no interest in rolling themselves back.

This would also explain the paradox of capitalism, to wit, that free markets are such powerful engines for economic growth, and yet, capitalism seems to inevitably result in large corporations doing significant societal damage. If one accepts that – to corrupt Clarke’s third law – any sufficiently advanced business is indistinguishable from government, then clearly large companies become part of the network of corrosive complexity, working right alongside governmental organizations to raise the standard of misery (Exhibit A: The Economic Crisis, the bailouts, and the aftermath).

More at My Posting Career.

We Are Not Vulcans

Objecting to the use of “game” because it is not “natural” has the same logical foundation as objecting to a Spanish speaker learning English so as to more effectively navigate US culture upon immigration.

Suppose you want to have sex with your wife. You might say the “natural” thing to do is to say “Honey dearest, I would like to have sex with you. What do you think of that?” That body of knowledge colloquially referred to as “game” contains the wise revelation that such a tactic is unlikely to be very arousing to your wife. Game would counsel a different tactic – such as sweeping her off her feet and carrying her over the threshold.

Likewise, the hungry Spanish speaker in the US will typically find “I would like a hamburger, please” to be more effective than “Quiero una hamburguesa, por favor.”

It is simply a matter of using what works to reach mutual satisfaction. One who wants hamburgers and sex is well advised to use effective measures to obtaining them – such as the local language and game, respectively.

Now, there are other options. A horny man could rape a woman off the street. A hungry Spanish speaker could rob a restaurant. But these actions are categorically different from language and game, because the imply a lack of consent on behalf of the acted-upon party.

Which is why game is fundamentally ethical. Presumably, your wife wants you to turn her on and have sex with her – why not do that effectively? Likewise, restaurants want to sell their wares – why not ask for your hamburger in the language understood by the cashier?

We are not Vulcans, and our sexuality reflects as much.

More at Dalrock.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.