What do I mean by “levels” of game/seduction discussion?

Guys have been asking what I mean when I talk about the “level” a given piece of advice operates at. There are at least two ladders of levels, maybe more. There’s the discussion/pattern ladder, and the game level.

There are GAME levels, and we’ll talk about them first… the first bunch of levels are where the man does almost all of the work, typically. Not always, but usually. Almost always if the woman is attractive. Initially, the man takes the brunt of the rejection. Sex is a fulcrum point. After it, more of the power and rejection ability shifts to the man. Men want to know, “Why won’t she put out? When will she put out?” Women want to know, “Why won’t he commit? Why doesn’t he call me after sex? Why doesn’t he acknowledge my love?” The seduction discussion among men is almost always about getting to sex and its immediate aftermath. The seduction discussion among women is almost always about a man who is high enough status and attractive enough being willing to commit to a woman.

Women are not stupid (a common refrain around here), and they know that they can have sex pretty quickly and easily if they want it. Many guys, however, don’t understand women and don’t understand that the female discussion is almost always past the “good sex” stage. There are articles about how to bait men into making the first move, especially guys who are +2 in SMV, but the bulk of the discussion happens at the later levels… “Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures” has greater detail, and so much advice, from and to both men and women, is garbage because it doesn’t talk about SMV level. Are you accurately assessing your own SMV? The SMV of the person you’re interested in? What that disparity or lack of disparity implies? So much of the discussion doesn’t address raising SMV, which is one big advantage of the red pill discussion, which begins with lifting, fashion, and diet. It’s about raising SMV.

Too much leadup. Some possible levels in the game:

  • Non-verbal indicator of interest (IOI).
  • Approach.
  • Initial rapport/seduction/whatever.
  • Exchange of numbers and contact information.
  • Date / seduction.
  • Kissing/stroking.
  • Bounceback, logistical challenges.
  • Clothes come off.
  • Sex. This is a fulcrum point, and it’s often where the female discussion starts: women want to know how, once a man has high enough status to lay them, to please the man and keep him interested and around.
  • Comfort/aftercare/bonding, especially if the woman has had deep sexual experiences and she doesn’t want to feel cheap/used/etc. Many men fail here. Once they’ve fucked they feel their “job” is done, which is a good way to needlessly hurt a woman. This is where a lot of women don’t want to go home and a lot of men want women to go home. Not universal, obviously.
  • Repeat sex/dates.
  • Where is this going?” conversation. Defining the relationship. That kind of thing. Red Pill guys often stop here, though many don’t even get here.
  • Committed relationships.
  • Cohabitation.
  • Marriage (I think this is a bad deal for men in most Western societies but it’s here for the sake of completeness).
  • Children/family/family structure.

Later on, there is group consciousness, pattern recognition, etc. There is understanding of a woman’s needs, psychologies, etc. And not all women are the same. A woman who really wants to be monogamous and have a family (some of these do exist) will be different from the wanton sex positive sluts I have found myself specializing in. A lot of guys can’t get to this stage with any regularity. High-status, high-value guys are much more likely to get here, and low-status guys should work on fixing and raising their status.

These stages can occur over long periods or short periods of time. It’s possible to have a great sexual experience in a bar bathroom half an hour after meeting a chick. It’s also possible to know a chick for months or years before you plunder her.

Discussion/pattern level.

  • The “bottom level” among guys is things like “happy wife, happy life.” Or, “What do women want?” Or, “I don’t understand why she did this thing.” Or, “She says she wants a nice guy but only dates assholes.” Or, putting women on a pedestal. It’s a foggy mixture of confusion, hostility, admiration, and uncertainty. Game strives to demystify this process.
  • The Reddit red pill discussion is a step above that, thankfully. It’s about the need for men to improve: diet, lifting, socializing, etc. It’s about the need to eliminate negative influences like video games, porn, TV, etc. It’s about learning to approach and accept that women like sex and have sexual criteria. Unfortunately it often stops around here.
  • The evolutionary biology discussion is a step above that, or at a similar step. It’s about learning long-term patterns of attraction, behavior, and incentives for men and women. It’s about field reports and testing the theory in real life.
  • A step above that is applying patterns to individual cultures and situations.
  • A step above that is seeing women as members of a group but also evaluating them as individuals. We are both at once. Not all women are alike, though one can see patterns.

Other thoughts

There is also monogamy/non-monogamy, which for me usually slots between “repeat sex” and “Where is this going?” You can put sex clubs in that zone as well, although sometimes it will appear earlier, in dates/seduction. If a woman says she is not looking for anything serious, thinks monogamy is silly, likes experimenting with drugs, like music festivals, etc., then she’s likely a party girl and an especially good candidate for sexual exploration. A woman who is looking for something serious, wants to have a family, is close with her family, etc., is not as good a candidate. Experienced guys also

Consciousness of the other person’s world(s) might be another, and one I have been talking about lately, maybe because I find myself thinking about ways out of the game… I am not going to be able to get top girls forever and I don’t think I want the rest of my life to be about chasing tail.

Some men also don’t like spending time with women (Krauser seems to be like this) and that impedes relationship/emotion formation. I’m not saying that men automatically have to want relationships or emotional connection but I am noting it.

Other levels could be devised. I don’t claim this to be exhaustive. Some levels could be collapsed and others expanded. “Theory” and “practice” for example are common divisions and those are fine too. You’ll sometimes run into keyboard jockeys who are repeating red pill ideas they found somewhere else, rather than telling stories from their own lives… I push many guys towards writing blogs because I want to read their stories and a large body of writing is often a good way to do a first pass as to whether they’re likely full of shit or not.

Another point around levels is 1. underlying value, 2. game/conveying value and 3. environment. Many guys attracted to red pill and seduction have low value and must raise their value (thus that conversation is happening). Without higher underlying value they will most often image match. A male 5 will find a female 3 – 5. Many guys can raise their value a lot through the standard red pill advice… if it is executed properly. Just like a lot of women can raise their value when they quit sugar, be less bitchy, etc.

A guy with pretty low value who tries to learn “game” is likely to be disappointed… and he is going to have a lot of corrosive interactions with women. Then he is going to sign up at the usual sites and complain about how mean women are, not realizing that he’s seeing his own value reflected back at him. If he is a 5 chasing 7s he is going to have a rough time. If he is a 5 who can raise his value to a 7 the game is still challenging but he will be much more in the game and much less likely to take to Internet fora to write about how women are super duper bad.

Neither men nor women are bad, on average…. there are bad individuals in each group…. if you think half the planet is universally bad… that tells us about you, not about women, or men.

Male value is more malleable than female value and men are more inclined to date up AND down in age range. The “bitter older woman asking where the good men are” genre occurs almost exclusively after age 30 and most often after age 35, when top guys in that age range are dating women in their 20s, or have already married and have families. If you read stories by women about how bad men are, you are almost always reading stories about how a woman is disappointed that a man who is +2 SMV compared to her doesn’t want to be monogamous with her.

This genre about the “good men” deficit exists because women are surprised that their SMV goes down and the guys they could get easily at age 25 are now passing on them or choosing easy sex without commitment. Delusional women think that they primarily desire social status / wealth / confidence / education etc. in men, so they will cultivate those virtues in themselves, only to find men are not totally indifferent to those things, but are not primarily moved by them. I mean, I’d love to have women in my life who make more money than me and are also hot and also want to lavish me with sexual attention, etc., but that is not a typical outcome. Most people see their incomes rise throughout their early lives and incomes tend to peak around age 50, and in the 45 – 60 range. I don’t believe I’ve ever had sex with a woman that old and my interest in it is nonexistent, though maybe one day I will (I won’t be able to get anyone else!) and, for most women, by the time they generate the highest incomes, they are not in my target priority pool. I understand why guys who are uncertain of their value and who don’t bring much are worried about higher-earning women but to be honest if you’re working on value in other fields you should be all right. Half of doctors and a lot of other people in the medical professions are now women and not all of them are unattractive.

“More malleable” status still requires putting in the work, which most guys can’t or won’t. Many guys are also building from shitty foundations, so the foundations must be torn up and rebuilt, and that’s hard. In some ways I have been building value since I was a child… and reaping it throughout my adult life. Many guys also don’t see the higher levels of game, which can get a bit “hippie” like when it comes to raising consciousness, helping others build their value, etc.

For example, there is the endless Internet talk of the “nice” guy. Women like men who are kind… but not men who are weak supplicants hoping to f**k based on being “nice.” Women do like hot, high-status guys who are also kind, not based on trying to get sex, but based on genuine non-reciprocity and conscious decision-making… from a position of strength. I am not a nice guy… I have slept with women who now hate me… I have fired people who needed the job but were bad at it… I have broken rules… I have slept with married women… but I have also been kind, at times. I have given value without getting anything in return. I have helped people, including strangers. I have gone the extra distance. I have played with small children in front of attractive women (I have a fun and favorite story about this subject). By the time I was 20 or 21, however, I had figured out that being “nice” to women is a turn off and demonstration of lower value (DLV) that moves me away from f**king her, not towards f**king her, so I quit doing that.

Do women like nice guys? It depends. Definitely not niceguys, one word. But do they like a guy who they see as having high SMV, who is maybe a little mysterious in some ways, doing something nice for someone else, without any expectation of things in return? Probably. But they also like funny guys… most humor has an edge… if you don’t have an edge, you won’t be that funny. I have made mean comments… told mean jokes… I will again too.

I am getting off topic, but I am overall in favor of Rollo, Reddit’s Red Pill and seduction, etc., even when some guys aren’t, because they the average or low level guy above his most basic level. They clear away a lot of bullshit mystification and set guys up to reach the higher end of their abilities. So that is a net win in my view, even if they tend to cluster at the lower level of the ladders, and I want mostly to talk about the middle and upper end of the ladders… there is a lot of good material on developing underlying game and value in Krauser, in the book Mate, in other places, so I don’t have anything unique to add there. Plus, game can be thought of a little bit like chess in that for good players the first 5 – 10 moves are memorized calls and responses and gamed out… the interesting stuff happens midgame.

But… to go back to the open forums and some blogs… some of these places focus too much on resentment, and how women are bad (they’re not, in most cases, unless men let them be bad…. women are mostly self-interested), how feminism is bad (modern feminism is bad, I agree, and I’m glad someone wants to fight that fight, but I don’t), etc. These places rarely have any talk about how to get guys from the medium level into the higher levels. I doubt most guys who get to the higher levels spend time in these places. The places with voting, tend to have strong crab-bucket mentality, in which low-level guys downvote anything that they can’t perceive, because it’s too high level for them to understand or get. Many of them are in the “anger” phase when they realize they’ve been lied to for much of their lives and that they would have been better off lifting heavy weights in high school than “being themselves,” soulfully waiting for some flighty teen girl to notice them, but she didn’t, cause she was off f**king a wrestler.

Without knowing where a guy is… it’s hard to address his needs, beliefs, etc. I have spent time at the lower parts of this ladder, with lots of limiting beliefs, etc., that meant I didn’t perform where I should have performed. That said I have not had some of the physical, intellectual, and social problems that some guys describe. I have not married the wrong woman and then suffered divorce-rape. I have not had some of the extremely bitter and caustic experiences some guys have, which damages their psychologies. I have had plenty of negative experiences with women, but none of the truly awful ones. Some of that has been luck and I don’t deny luck’s role. I have had a lot of luck! Given my love of raw dogging… a lot, lot of luck. Some of it though has been a decent amount of work building and protecting value. I also had a pretty early sense of reciprocity and value exchange… so if a woman was trying to take value without offering any in return, I was (somewhat) good at protecting myself from that. Not perfectly because in my teens and early 20s I was scared of top girls lavished a lot of attraction-killing retention, followed them around like a puppy, listened to their stories about the guys they really liked or were fucking, etc. I needed eye-contact work and escalation work. But I was never as low as some guys are/were, and I had some things going for me.

The bottom-level discussion online has clarified things for me, taught me things, made vague ideas concrete. I don’t scorn that level of discussion. Many guys need it. The absence of top-level discussion is revealing… it tells us about the state of the masses. That’s why I began writing the blog… I realized that in other venues, almost no guys faced the “where is this going?” conversation, and wouldn’t understand the dilemmas faced by guys who get it regularly. I realized that the high-level discussion of sex clubs for players would have no role. Most often the response would be “cuck lol.” For a guy who struggles to get and maintain one woman… who is worried about losing her… who is unsure about his own status… this response makes a lot of sense. I get where he’s coming from. He’s playing a risky game with rewards he can’t perceive. For a guy who struggles with liking women and wanting to maintain them while also achieving sexual novelty… this strategy can make sense. Where a guy is will condition his response.

There’s also nothing wrong with being a beginner… almost all of us start there… but most guys never seem to get past the most beginner of beginning stage.

It’s perfectly normal of course for a guy to be high level and not like what I’m doing. But a guy who is at the lower levels… he can probably barely understand what I’m doing, or the problems I’m familiar with facing.

In real life I meet plenty of guys who never get past the lowest levels. They’ve had one or a very few girlfriends they got by luck and circumstance. They don’t understand women. Maybe they got married and now their marriage is stale and they don’t understand why. Their wife or girlfriend isn’t intersted in sex with them. They stay together “for the sake of the kids” without understanding what is wrong. They “got lucky” with her. They say, “She’s the boss” (words that have never passed my lips and never will). They tolerate bad behavior because they think they have to. Plenty of guys never get past these levels… and they can still get a woman of some kind, have kids eventually, pass on their genes, etc., but the sense of mystery and frustration never ends. It troubles them when they are watching sports or playing video games… then their team does the thing, or their video game makes a fake fitness demand on them, and the trouble vanishes, cause the team just did the thing or the video game requires a move.

The red pill and seduction communities exist to boost these guys. Plenty of them will accept the boost… but not that many will go all the way… I am interested in the ones who want to go all the way, who want to play the game but also understand the game, who want to seduce women but also improve the women who are open to being improved and worth of being improved, the ones who want to master the game so they can move past the game.

I don’t submit myself as one who has surpassed the game or one who is at the highest levels… I can see the higher levels, I believe. Chances are I can never reach most guys cause most guys are at the lower levels or if they aren’t they will never find this. I can keep trying to do a little better, though.

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

16 thoughts on “What do I mean by “levels” of game/seduction discussion?”

  1. It’s a shame there are some great players out there, way better that me and with tons more experience, who are completely delusional about monogamy. Especially one-sided monogamy, when they are fine with fucking around but “their” LTR aren’t, becase “cuck, lol”.

    Like

  2. > Without knowing where a guy is… it’s hard to address his needs, beliefs, etc.

    The Guy, and the Girl, and the Context.

    If I were to coach (and I want to), I need all that “who are you,” “what do you like,” “what is your lay count,” “how many girls to you talk to per month,” “what is your goal”/etc before I give advice.

    > The absence of top-level discussion is revealing… it tells us about the state of the masses.

    Yeah. And no disrespect to beginners… But that is most guys in game.

    Game is funnel. With the widest part at “would like to, but never started,” and then the funnel narrows slightly to “beginners.”

    This 90% of guys in game. All of them have opinions… None of them should speak. They should get to work… “be seen, but not heard.”

    The funnel narrows again to “guys that approach/swipe” a lot. And it narrows again to guys that date semi-regularly. These guys are at the “apprentice stage.” Never used that term before, but I like it.

    The funnel is getting very narrow when you get to guys that approach a lot, date a lot, and have done so for 2+ years. These guys have a “shallow” range of knowledge, but they have been tested and their comment are based on reality… They are more interesting.

    Then… A very narrow part of the funnel with guys with 30+ lays and hundreds of dates and real depth of experience.

    I would call this ^ the “middle” of the funnel… Even though it’s the top 5% of men.

    There is another “50%” of knowledge that is beyond this part… It’s very hard to find the men that have this “lower funnel” knowledge.

    THE INTERESTING STUFF HAPPENS MIDGAME.”
    — @TheRedQuest

    Great post.

    Like

    1. >>If I were to coach (and I want to), I need all that “who are you,” “what do you like,” “what is your lay count,” “how many girls to you talk to per month,” “what is your goal”/etc before I give advice.

      The lack of this… is obvious… most people online can’t even ask good questions that have enough context to offer useful commentary.

      I also like and respect beginners… we all start as beginners… we all end up dead… what’s in between is interesting.

      I think the speaking is fine, the asking questions, the sharing where you are in your journey… the problems come from never moving past that space. But I also think most guys just want an acceptable girlfriend, and once they get one, that’s it, and they drop out of the scene. So who is left? We see that. Big old adverse selection. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

      >>There is another “50%” of knowledge that is beyond this part… It’s very hard to find the men that have this “lower funnel” knowledge.

      Whatever innovation I have… it’s at the back 50% of the game… other guys do a better job at the front matter, for the most part. I have usefully phrased and foregrounded some ideas, like https://theredquest.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/attention-is-the-only-tool-modern-men-have/, but the book and my experiences combining aspects of game with sex clubs, is where I have material and experience that no one else actively writing does. To my knowledge. If any readers come across a guy who has been writing in the same field… please direct me to him.

      I wonder if there is a universe of guys out there writing, who are not connected to the writers I know of in any way.

      It also seems that most guys have a 5 year, maybe 10 year, real run in the game… then go do other things… so there is that too.

      Like

    2. And the book… it is mostly about the mid game and later… I have open sourced it for a reason… it’s creative commons licensed, so guys can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want with it… but I don’t expect it to have big impact, because it’s too far down the funnel, if you will.

      And I haven’t paid to have it properly copy edited, etc., so I am sure it’s still a bit rough. I have been talking to 4 – 6 players who have been trying out some aspects of it, and those conversations have led me to add and clarify some material, so that has been cool.

      Also… this could be another post… I think that the influence of porn has made some of these ideas more palatable to a broader sweep of people, than was the case even 10 or 15 yrs ago. Unfortunately, I think porn has also made women more performative and less authentic in bed… I have found myself more often telling women to relax, enjoy the feelings, concentrate on themselves, that kind of thing, because I think they are imitating, maybe subconsciously, what they think they need to do from porn video exposure, and they don’t realize that the best sex… it usually doesn’t look like porn… it can… but not often.

      One downside of the sex club world is that people can focus too much on performance there. But one upside is that it’s possible to pick up new ideas, techniques, toys, etc. For me, it’s been a real win. I have seen and learned some dark things from it… but I have also seen and learned some light/beautiful things… and in the work I have done I am working to express both sides, if you will. Many people imagine only the dark sides… many of the proponents want to emphasize the light and beautiful side… I want to know them both. To know the fullness of life and of the game.

      Like

    3. Nash, RedQuest, this is a great breakdown and I agree.

      For that “Lower Funnel” (the “50%” of knowledge that is beyond” the middle) – I wonder if we could collectively work flesh out those lower funnel topics, and start to cover them?

      A lot of this would be being high value (Mystery’s “attraction switches”), but there are some key topics here, such as non-verbal game, secret society tells, game ecosystems, and deep conversion. These topics tend to need to be learned but experience and not writing, but may be worth listing out as a guide to what’s possible.

      Like

      1. For that “Lower Funnel” (the “50%” of knowledge that is beyond” the middle) – I wonder if we could collectively work flesh out those lower funnel topics, and start to cover them?

        I think Krauser has done a lot of that in terms of daygame, etc., despite his relentless racism and misanthropy.

        I think I’m doing it/have done it for non-monogamy aspects of game. And BD too in terms of relationship structure (want to give credit where it’s due).

        >>A lot of this would be being high value (Mystery’s “attraction switches”), but there are some key topics here, such as non-verbal game, secret society tells, game ecosystems, and deep conversion. These topics tend to need to be learned but experience and not writing, but may be worth listing out as a guide to what’s possible.

        I’d read it and add to it. I think most guys are so far from it… that the lower level ones won’t believe it’s possible for non-famous guys. But if you get up a topic list send me it.

        Like

  3. “So much advice, from and to both men and women, is garbage because it doesn’t talk about SMV level… are you accurately assessing your own SMV? The SMV of the person you’re interested in? What that disparity or lack of disparity implies? So much of the discussion also doesn’t talk about raising SMV, which is one big advantage of the red pill discussion, despite its drawbacks.”

    This is key and yet rarely talked about in the community. Male SMV is far more malleable and durable than female SMV, which is rather fragile, and for most women, fleeting. But you are correct to note that any discussion of love, dating, sex, etc. should account for our baseline SMV, and 99.9% of the time it doesn’t.

    It’s true that as men, one of the ways we can raise our SMV is through learning game, but I’d like to point out that this is not an infinite path. For example, if you’re fit, muscular, and have good game, etc., but have an odd body shape, are exceptionally short (or tall), old (or young), or happen to have a face that’s somewhat asymmetrical, etc., some portion of women just aren’t going to go for you. This is especially true of money–there are some chicks who are hot, privileged, and for whom money is important enough that they’re simply not going to date a guy who makes $60K a year or less. Actually that’s in itself is huge re: there aren’t enough economically attractive men to marry (I’ll point out that they might still sleep with you however, even if you aren’t marriage material).

    But what I want to get at about SMV is that the higher outside your SMV you reach, the more difficult it gets, no matter how good your game is. Like, if you’re 55 and want to bang only girls under 24, that’s going to be tough and you’re going to have to approach way more chicks to find one who’s down. When I read about guys–especially day gamers–who have these astronomical approach to lay counts (200+ to 1 lay), I wonder if their standards are simply too high/unrealistic. Now don’t get me wrong, we all have our reasons for getting into game, and if it’s only to sleep with a certain type of girl, then God bless you go for it. I just think guys need to keep that in mind: your SMV matters. Looks play a role, and at some point, that’s true no matter how much game you have.

    The only thing I’ll add is that when we talk about levels, there’s also experience within the level. Like, I’m nowhere near that back 50%–I haven’t done the sex club thing (yet), haven’t had a lot of threesomes, haven’t gamed internationally, etc–but when it comes to cold approach pick-up, dating, and getting girls in bed, even though I haven’t been at it for a super long time, I’m pretty damn good. Watch out Roy Walker! Kidding–that guy’s a genius.

    However, I am starting to see the evolutionary biology aspect play out, and am starting to see how and why women behave how they do and why–see my recent post on approaching in “warm” situations, because women in these scenarios are much more likely to be receptive. https://redpilldad.blog/2019/10/20/day-game-and-cold-approach-in-warm-situations/

    In terms of seeing moves ahead, this to me is the next step most guys never take. What does the girl need you to do to spark that attraction–to feel comfortable in your arms and then in your bed? I’ve been with some amazing chicks in the past year, some very hot, but some of the hottest and youngest have eluded me because I didn’t see what she needed and was not able to calibrate our interaction to give her that comfort. But part of what I’m getting at in the above paragraph is that a guy can essentially be an expert at cold approach and very good at dating, but not be on this level.

    “Delusional women think that they primarily desire social status / wealth / confidence / education etc. in men, so they will cultivate those virtues in themselves, only to find men are not totally indifferent to those things, but are not primarily moved by them.”

    I would replace delusional with most–especially middle/upper class American IG girls–which is something I think our society is starting to deal with, again re: the whole lack of economically attractive men thing. Women have been raised to believe that the same script that works well for dudes–go to college/get a good job/travel when young/settle down in your 30’s when you have more money–works well for women and it just doesn’t for reasons we’re all familiar with.

    Connected with that is yes, while men aren’t totally indifferent to wealth/confidence/education, it barely moves the needle at all. For example, if I said you can date a 24 year old HB 8 who does nails and is super poor, or a 33 year old 7 who’s a lawyer and owns her own home, my guess is 80-90% of guys go for the 8. I would. But you reverse that for women and make the 7 & 8 both men and probably 95% of women go for the older guy who’s less attractive but has more money.

    Good post. Lots to think about and unpack.

    Like

    1. >>The only thing I’ll add is that when we talk about levels, there’s also experience within the level. Like, I’m nowhere near that back 50%–I haven’t done the sex club thing (yet), haven’t had a lot of threesomes, haven’t gamed internationally, etc–but when it comes to cold approach pick-up, dating, and getting girls in bed, even though I haven’t been at it for a super long time, I’m pretty damn good

      I think you’re in the back 50%. Most guys never hit “getting laid regularly.”

      >>In terms of seeing moves ahead, this to me is the next step most guys never take. What does the girl need you to do to spark that attraction–to feel comfortable in your arms and then in your bed? I’ve been with some amazing chicks in the past year, some very hot, but some of the hottest and youngest have eluded me because I didn’t see what she needed and was not able to calibrate our interaction to give her that comfort.

      Possible. It’s also possible they weren’t going to go for it.

      >>Connected with that is yes, while men aren’t totally indifferent to wealth/confidence/education, it barely moves the needle at all. For example, if I said you can date a 24 year old HB 8 who does nails and is super poor, or a 33 year old 7 who’s a lawyer and owns her own home, my guess is 80-90% of guys go for the 8. I would.

      I think it depends some on what the guy is looking for… guys with options have multiple ladders as well… if a guy is primarily looking for sex, then yeah, younger hotter tighter and all that. If a guy is primarily looking for a woman to have a family with… obviously looks still count but a lot of other features count for more.

      I think most guys are really looking for sex and settle for monogamy and family cause they can’t get it any other way, so that is a logical counter. But for guys with options… at some point… if they/we do want a family… we think more about the girl’s character, maturity, etc. And yes even whether she is economically okay… a woman who is out of school and has no job or minimal job history is telling us something about her that is probably not what we want to see at this point in history.

      Like

  4. Even though I am not in the non-monogamy scene, your blog is one of the most insightful out there. It is always interesting to hear about your experience and insights.

    Regarding the levels of game, in terms of “pattern level” as you put it, I have always been puzzled by how no one seems to try to integrate personality theories into game. Here and there there would be discussions about different “types” of girls, or girls with different attachment styles, but I have seen no real attempts to apply personality theories developed in psychology like Big 5, MBTI or Ennegram in game context, even though one would think it is a natural refinement to the existing framework, and offer clues to customise and calibrate your game to different kinds of girls.

    I am partial to MBTI, even though it is not popular in academia. It is relatively easy to understand, and if nothing else, provides a set of handy labels to talk and think about different stereotypes.

    Like

    1. Thanks, dude. I might be running out of insights and experience… if things go well I will probably drop off for at least a couple years… but I do feel like I’m filling a niche that’s been almost completely unaddressed. Black Dragon is the only person I know of who’s doing something similar and writing about it.

      With personality, that’s hard to say… I think that at the level of the most basic of basics, the same stuff all applies. Lift, practice, open, get over AA, etc. The personality stuff begins to happen in the midgame… but most guys don’t get to the midge… so no one talks about personality.

      The guys writing are almost all technically-minded introverts. That’s who writes. Extroverts don’t want to read or write much. People who aren’t technically minded don’t care to break things down. Guys with outgoing sunny personalities… they probably don’t care to write a lot.

      Like

      1. Please keep writing. Out of the (too) many blogs on game nowadays, yours is one of the few that still brings fresh insights and perspectives to the table. As you pointed out elsewhere, most material out there focus on the early stages of pick up. Many have become repetitive and stale. And like many online communities, degenerate into echo chambers.

        You are right that you are filling a niche that is not addressed. In terms of lessons of game, you have a lot of material in the 3-6 months, call it early to mid relationship, timespan. In terms of “levels”, you write more about how different pick ups or relationships play out based on the dynamics of the situation, although it would be fun to hear more about the tactical, “how things are said”, level of detail, too.

        Your FRs on how different girls respond to different situations, although necessarily anecdotal, are always interesting. And I especially enjoy your “perspectives” kind of posts where you write about the nature of game itself, how it affects you and the goals of game.

        You are also correct that women are women, all the same basic game tactics apply. Elsewhere you observed that generic game advice often fail to take into account of SMV differences. I agree and it is definitely matters. I mentioned personality theories because you are thoughtful and curious, and I believe personality theories represent a further step of refinement in terms of understanding women and in practice, have a significant role midgame and at least gives us a vocabulary to talk about things like “chemistry” that often turn into a bunch of handwaving.

        My guess about why the game community doesn’t seem too interested in personality theories is that often they are written off as vague, hippie theories. Human behaviour is complex, and none of the “standard” theories out there are anywhere near complete. There are flaws in all of them. I rejected them when I studied them in school, it wasn’t until much later, and after gaining much more experience interacting with people, that I began to grasp the nuances personality theories try to tease apart. But they are definitely useful tools, and I think even if you disagree with them, they would give you something interesting to think about. I find it most fruitful to start with MBTI, but instead of treating the traits as binary, i.e. extraverted or introverted, think of them as dimensions where we all exist on a spectrum, and the propensity to exhibit certain behaviour. Then you can start sorting the people you know, and the girls you have been with, into different clusters and try to see the common patterns between them.

        Being an introvert myself, I have to say if nothing else, some understanding of personality theories help introverts more than extraverts. Introverts prefer to spend less time with people than extraverts do, so we don’t have as much personal experience and the right “instincts” to run with. This often manifests as poor calibration in early stages of learning game. The theory side of the community, naturally, should be interested in improving and refining our theoretical framework. Pretty much all the basic things that can be said had been said. I think the next steps in improving our understanding of game lies in incorporating elements such as SMV differences, personalities and cultural differences into game.

        Like

      2. I appreciate the sentiment… but if I am not doing active research (=opening new girls, etc.), then I think I will run out of material… I don’t want to be the windbag talking about the glory days… maybe I will shift over time. We’ll see.

        >>although it would be fun to hear more about the tactical, “how things are said”, level of detail, too.

        Fair… although I haven’t done recordings, etc., and a lot of mine come from ecosystems and for that reason it’s often a warm approach, when I know what’s up and so does she. It’s also often how it’s said, and the girl’s reaction.

        >>You are also correct that women are women, all the same basic game tactics apply. Elsewhere you observed that generic game advice often fail to take into account of SMV differences. I agree and it is definitely matters.

        It’s important because if a guy is sufficiently low SMV… even if he does it “right…” it won’t work, probably. With good game he can raise his SMV a bit, but probably not stratospherically. Krauser is good on this… is probably the best at tapping girls outside his SMV range… he seems to have done that very impressively.

        >>Human behaviour is complex, and none of the “standard” theories out there are anywhere near complete.

        Complex… but also patterned… a given individual may respond or not respond to game… and there are women who are exceptions/different… but they are rare, and most of the time we see the usual patterns. Some women will also like different types, e.g. as mentioned in this https://theredquest.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/there-is-no-easy-way-there-is-only-the-hard-way/

        A woman who likes the military guy may not like the business guy or the surfer weed guy… while a different woman may be the opposite.

        >>Being an introvert myself, I have to say if nothing else, some understanding of personality theories help introverts more than extraverts. Introverts prefer to spend less time with people than extraverts do, so we don’t have as much personal experience and the right “instincts” to run with.

        Extroverts have troubles of their own, I think. They find it harder to generate income, outside of a few professions like sales. They are more likely to go bankrupt. Introvert girls may not like them much (find them yappy). I think some of them are talkers but not good at escalating, and have their own typical problems here. And… I don’t think they write much… so the online conversation is dominated by nerdy introverts.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s