I don’t tell other guys what to do. Personality traits and dating

I don’t tell other guys what to do, unless they ask (or unless, in a business setting, I’m paying them)… even if they do ask, I aim to set up the problem space and the principles involved, then let them decide for themselves. There’s some divergence between me and other other guys on topics (example), and that’s fine…. read me, read them, decide for yourself. The basic principles of game and seduction are well established and if you want to ignore them, do it. I’m writing about my experiences and observations… maybe they’ll work for you… maybe not… I have said to guys privately, “Assume everything I write is bullshit and try it out for yourself.” What I do isn’t for everyone… we all have different preferences, life experiences, big five personality traits, etc. What is right for me may not be right for you, or for other guys. I’m just talking about what I’ve found… and how I’ve organized it and what some of the underlying principles are, or seem to be. I also don’t have the energy for online combat… it’s largely pointless… if other guys want to do other things, good, go do them… that is fine. Experience teaches best.

I will argue that most guys don’t understand what is possible, for the right guy, and most guys don’t know s**t about women. The stories are about what’s possible. We’re social learners and I don’t think most guys get how deep the rabbit hole goes.

In terms of five-factor personality, I am pretty open to experience, as regular readers will understand. My conscientious is strongly bifurcated… I am super conscientious in many respects, but also very easy going and careless in others… this could be unusual. I’m not sure. Extraversion is similar… I need to time to recharge from social experiences but I am also capable of managing social experiences, like all players must be. I can be agreeable in some ways, especially in social circumstances, but I have also read How To Win Friends and Influence People, and head-on disagreement rarely solves or improves anything. To change a person’s view, come at the views via indirect angles that slowly change foundations over time. Direct disagreeability is usually counterproductive. Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is. I’m low neuroticism… no surprise there… many women are highly neurotic, and I calm them down well.

How many marry out of tiredness or desperation?

I wonder how many guys (and girls) get in relationships or marriages not because they really truly want to, but because their dating markets are thin and the courtship process is onerous and annoying.

There’s no way to answer this question, but I bet the number of people who are in relationships because they really truly want to be is smaller than the number of people who are in relationships because they feel they can’t do better, or are tired of flakey chicks, etc. I believe that, subconsciously, I responded well to non-monogamy for a bunch of reasons… one being that it can effectively deal with the large number of flakey chicks out there. One reliable girl is better than 10 flakey ones and if a flakey one shows up on a date with the reliable girl, it’s a win-win.

Get outside of the big cities and you’ll see the dating market get really thin really fast. In that environment, pairing up makes sense, because the good ones won’t be on the market forever. It’s more attractive to be an eternal bachelor in the thicker, dense cities, because there is always new tail around the corner.

Women can think the same thing but the biological clock is working against them to a much greater degree past age 30. So many women in their 30s in the big cities are trending towards spinsterhood because they misuse their valuable assets.

Very few people do things for entirely “rational” reasons (I used to think I knew what “rational” means in general, now I don’t really), and understanding our own internal drives is very difficult.

How not to be boring on dates

You know boredom = death. You don’t know how to not be boring. “Talk Less. Listen More. Here’s How. Lessons in the art of listening, from a C.I.A. agent, a focus group moderator and more.”

Good listeners ask good questions. One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned as a journalist is that anyone can be interesting if you ask the right questions. That is, if you ask truly curious questions that don’t have the hidden agenda of fixing, saving, advising, convincing or correcting. Curious questions don’t begin with “Wouldn’t you agree…?” or “Don’t you think…?” and they definitely don’t end with “right?” The idea is to explore the other person’s point of view, not sway it.

Often it’s better to make statements than ask questions.

You also want to avoid asking people personal and appraising questions like “What do you do for a living?” or “What part of town do you live in?” or “What school did you go to?” or “Are you married?” This line of questioning is not an honest attempt to get to know who you’re talking to so much as rank them in the social hierarchy. It’s more like an interrogation and, as a former C.I.A. agent told me, interrogation will get you information, but it won’t be credible or reliable.

In social situations, peppering people with judgmental questions is likely to shift the conversation into a superficial, self-promoting elevator pitch. In other words, the kinds of conversations that make you want to leave the party early and rush home to your dog.

Instead, ask about people’s interests. Try to find out what excites or aggravates them — their daily pleasures or what keeps them up at night. Ask about the last movie they saw or for the story behind a piece of jewelry they’re wearing. Also good are expansive questions, such as, “If you could spend a month anywhere in the world, where would you go?”

Research indicates that when people who don’t know each other well ask each other these types of questions, they feel more connected than if they spent time together accomplishing a task. They are the same kinds of questions listed in the widely circulated article “36 Questions That Lead to Love” and are similar to the conversation starters suggested by the Family Dinner Project, which encourages device-free and listening-focused meals.

These are things players teach guys to do. Many guys are technical, focused on achievement, and blind to most of the emotions/feelings chicks have. Conversationally, many guys see in black and white, while chicks see in full color. Most chicks are not results-oriented, they’re feelings-oriented, so when guys try to talk about whatever they’re learning or their latest achievement, most chicks zone out. It’s even worse when the guy’s only achievement is from playing video games

There are exceptions. If a guy has learned something about dancing, acroyoga, theater, singing, etc., a lot of chicks will be interested in that. Lots of chicks are into gossip, but gossip is dangerous, if you make her think you’re not part of the secret society or are going to judge her sexually. Gossip is also irrelevant from online dates with girls who you don’t interact with socially.

Good conversationalists get that way through practice. If you’re the typical online social retard it’s going to take you a while to get there. You practice a little bit every day and after a couple years you get pretty good. Like everything else.

Socially skilled players also know when to break rapport. If she’s rambling on about her family, treating you like a girlfriend, etc., or extensively engaging in long, too-safe topics, it can be useful to break rapport, spike her sexually, etc. Every situation is different and no guy does this perfectly all the time. As usual, Krauser’s textbooks have loads of details on this subject and much more depth than I can offer. I have heard many chicks complain about boring conversations with guys and many guys complain that chicks seem bored and bitchy… rather than blaming chicks for being who they are or blaming guys for being who we are, I suggest pragmatically upping your skills, instead of complaining.

Game, intelligence, IQ, image match

The players writing about the game almost always have above-average intelligence, and it shows in their writing. This makes sense because you can’t be a total dummy and develop high-level game skills. It’s too complex to learn the skills, integrate the skills, practice the skills, and so on, for real dummies to do this. You have to plan and execute ideas. Some of the things you do may not bear fruit for many months or years (IQ, conscientious, and foresight are correlated). Diet and exercise discipline is hard and takes months or years to see results. You must learn from harsh rejections and cruel women. If you are too stupid to get feedback from women, incorporate the feedback, make changes, and try again, you will fail. The Internet is full of guys doing the same thing over and over again, then complaining about chicks.

We know quite a bit about food and nutrition but it takes time and energy to learn these things, which many people never do. I myself have spent thousands of dollars over the years on coaches, trainers, and physical therapy (to repair damage). These things are impractical for the ignorant… or just stupid. Someone bedazzled by images and unable to learn from reading is probably not going to execute the game effectively. Someone who likes playing video games to the detriment of the rest of his life, same problem.

Don’t want to toot my own horn too much, but I have heard guys who get into this say there are fewer idiots than they expected. To be sure “smart” isn’t everything and smart-enough people can have motivated reasoning problems. Krauser, to use one sample, suffers from a lot of motivated reasoning and racism but his overall IQ can’t be so low. The racism and foolishly anti-immigrant sentiment is linked to his motivated reasoning; he often denies historical and scientific fact that conflicts with his racist, in-group views. Yet his overall IQ is evident from his writing.

Going back to the image match thing, some girls will not sleep with guys below some minimum IQ (or will do so very rarely and in exceptional circumstances, like sports heroes or very hot guys). I’ve had success with smart girls who won’t f**k stupid guys but who are pretty… and they have a small market because plenty of “smart” guys (in a raw IQ sense) smarten themselves out of style, social skills, and game. Think about many engineers and programmers on the autism spectrum. So I can end up pressing a lot of those girls’ buttons very quickly. Some pretty but smart girls have found me almost a relief from the basic guy, and while they are not super common themselves but I have found myself in a lot of situations where they congregate. Dumb girls will often f**k smart guys who are also fun and flirty, so smart guys with game can go down in IQ and still touch on the smarter girls.

It can go the other way, too… for long term relationships… after you have f**ked a girl a couple hundred times, maybe a thousand times… her physical beauty is just not going to be as important as it was the first time you saw her, the first time you got her nude, etc. It won’t be unimportant but it won’t matter as much. Her capacity to say surprising things, learn new things, etc…. that can continue for her entire lifespan. Smarter girls will also understand the importance of fitness and nutrition, and they will have the ability to understand that eating the ice cream today has important negative consequences tomorrow. The smartest people don’t just take in, judge, and evaluate new information… they use that information effectively to make changes. Longer-term relationships work better with girls who are effective than girls who are ineffective. If you are an old enough guy, you have met hot girls, or once hot girls, who have lots of short and medium term relationships but can’t seem to keep the guy. Sometimes the fact is that they are hot but vapid, so a man is happy to f**k her until he’s bored of her. F**k a woman a sufficient number of times and you’re likely not with her anymore just cause she’s hot.

Our society does a poor job teaching guys what chicks want… so guys who want to really know, have to learn for ourselves, and from other guys. This is hard for guys who are blinded by advertising, video games, etc., or guys who are just dumb.

Where I’m on-board with alternative lifestyles and where I deviate

Someone wrote about their experiences,

>>I bailed on the SF hippies… and you overlap with them in many ways… but are wiser, as I see it.

I have some overlap, but the SF hippies have no knowledge of history (communes and free love have been tried), no knowledge of evolutionary biology, no knowledge of economics, and no knowledge of game theory. Their ideology is usually one that allows them to attempt to take value without offering similar value in return. The minute you get into that kind of situation, things fall apart fast (this is why socialism doesn’t work: lack of reciprocity and encouraging people to take without giving). Evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller describes SF hippie weaknesses, “Polyamory Is Growing—And We Need To Get Serious About It.” The hippies, consciously “alt” type people… are not serious about it. Fine, good for them. I have run into them now and then, then go about my business, ignoring them. The hotter women… almost all have some sense of their value, and they don’t want to give that away. The low-value women are fine with the hippie thing.

I DO want to make the world a better place. I DO think monogamy doesn’t work for many people. I DO want to have ecstatic experiences. So we have some things in common. But I am too pragmatic for SF hippies.

Marriage today is a problem because it assumes lifelong partnership and a stay-at-home wife who should get half the resources in the event of divorce. Today, most partnerships are not lifelong and most wives don’t stay at home or maintain themselves or submit to their husbands sexually or be truly monogamous. Marriage lets women take without giving… like socialism, it fails for a lot of people. So the whole marriage contract makes no sense, for anyone who thinks about it for ten minutes.

I think kids are important, but marriage is bad… almost no one is thinking this through. Most people maybe need the romantic mystification to have kids. They believe the lifelong love myth, long enough to have a couple kids, then they get divorced, which is catastrophic for the individual, but maybe good for the group and society and the selfish genes.

So I am thinking about how to have shorter-term pair bonds, how to have kids, how to negotiate those kinds of things, but without the marriage expectation.

Most chicks have not thought about any of this stuff either. When I introduce a chick to non-monogamy, she can later get the rest of my payload and my theories / interests, cause she is starting to get it, to see things differently. Sort of like how pickup and dating advice from pickup artists leads a lot of guys into the Red Pill. It starts at sex… then it leads towards other places. Political and societal places.

I don’t think I have all the answers… I am trying to follow the thread.

I have also been called calculated and similar things by chicks… the chicks are probably right. It is a downside to the analytic mindset. I don’t have as much of the passionate, headlong rush in me.

Stability and novelty/pleasure are probably just not going to happen fully together. Possible solutions to this problem interest me.

Loneliness and long term versus libido

It seems like there’s some trade-off between loneliness and libido, in a way that I didn’t feel when I was younger. For quite a few years I wanted to f**k as many hot chicks as possible, as often as I could, and when I did that, it was good. Body, soul, and psyche in perfect alignment. I still want to do that, but there is an undercurrent of loneliness and melancholy to random hookups, even with really hot chicks (some of me going on about the subject, here, here, probably some other spots too). That means I should seek something longer term, right?

Then… there is the libido thing… when I see or worse interact with a hot chick, I still want to f**k her. There are some ways to try and minimize the distinction between them… but I don’t think they’re going away, as a trade off.

I don’t have the typical 2,000 words of elaboration on the theme… it’s just a feeling that I’ve had for a while. Life is about contending with problems, not about ease. When I think about the long term, I want companionship. When I think about the next hour, I want a hot wet naked chick writhing underneath me. I think about some of the gorgeous and wonderful women I had writhing underneath me five or seven years ago, and I can barely remember some of them, in some cases. Their effect on the current life is almost zero.

Combining non-monogamy, game, and sex clubs to unlock abundance and commodification

A player I know says he was talking to a wing about the sex clubs and some of his ecosystems,

It seems that the feeling now for me is that when you channel a girl’s promiscuous side, they are subconsciously signalling to you that they are not a good choice for children due to paternity issues. The other feeling I’m getting is that all women are exchangeable – you can just trade and find a new one that suits you better. I’ve never felt like that. The talk about “Frame” seems to center on controlling a woman’s sexuality … but after going to a sex party I don’t really care what the women does if I don’t want children with her. Some very new feelings for me and not very palatable for the average red pill or tradcon commentator.

I’m not as sure about the good choice for children, cause some women going to sex clubs still want children and have (should have) the forebrain, conscious ability to be monogamous with a man in order to conceive. A lot of men are not as eager for these women as primary partners, however. But “The other feeling I’m getting is that all women are exchangeable – you can just trade and find a new one that suits you better. I’ve never felt like that,” that is accurate and true to my experience. I feel for this player, cause I’ve been feeling like that for a while… and I’ve actually become kind of weary of that feeling… which doesn’t make a huge amount of sense but it’s true. It’s the thinking behind why women hate the demystification of romance and mating offered by the game. When players build value and learn attraction triggers and game, we can move to the abundance mentality that is much-discussed online. The non-monogamy raises and increases the abundance.

This only works for the guy with some underlying value, some game, and a functioning environment (big city). If a guy has true abundance… if he has more than he can handle… he’s not so worried about controlling women’s sexuality… she should be worried about controlling her own sexuality in order to entice him. Women over time become more worried about controlling his attention and resources. When guys online write about “making her chase,” this is what they’re talking about… but it only really works after the woman has invested, not before. For a non-elite man, trying to “make her chase” when she knows nothing about you is foolish, because there is nothing for her to chase. When she figures out you are not a commodity guy, then there is.

Most women are the same… but not all of them… it takes a lot of experience to recognize the genuinely non-commodity woman. Most guys going on about their angel who isn’t like other girls… don’t realize she’s not an angel… she is like other girls… he’s just blinding himself to the obvious. Until he finds her in bed with another man, divorced, etc.

To me… the sex clubs shift female sexuality TOWARDS commodification, which can be a benefit to guys. This is what the “LOL cuck” guys miss, because they can’t imagine a different world from the scarcity one they inhabit. The player I’ve been talking to is seeing the world in a different way, based on experiences that are foreclosed to most guys. He is now seeing the secret society, which most guys don’t (can’t) do.

If you’ve read this piece, you’ll like the free book, too.