Tom Torero’s memoir-textbook “Daygame”

I’m smacking my head after reading this:

I asked her to bring me a present costing no more than £1, and I’d do the same. It’s an “investment routine” that I’v used many times since, which gets the girls to commit to the date and not flake – they spend the week thinking of what to get you.

The quote is from Tom Torero’s Daygame and the suggestion is brilliant and easy. I wish I’d thought of this ten years ago. Being good at anything is the accumulation of thousands of small details. This suggestion is one and it must improve pipeline retention. People can also usually only hold a single thing in their mind at a time, so if she’s thinking about the present she’s not thinking about whether she ought to flake.

If you are doing any amount of game and earn more than $5 per hour you need to read this book, as it may save you many many hours through suggestions like the one above. The ones you find most useful will be different from the ones I find most useful. Guys will get more from reading one comprehensive book than 100 random, fragmented blog posts. Daygame puts many seduction pieces together. The simplest parts of game are the very beginning (when there isn’t much to do apart from opener, vibe, and stack) and the very end (the actual sex). It’s the middle where the action happens and for that reason most of Daygame is about the middle, just like most of the Internet posts are about the beginning or end, where guys need the least instruction.

There are too many lessons in Daygame to list them all, but I like: “Either interactions go well, or they’re just funny stories.” Exactly right and you have permission to take the pressure off. Be fizzy and exciting. There are an infinite number of possibilities out there and while I’ve done many things right, I’ve also spent too much of my life taking things with women too seriously. That has almost always been a mistake. Learn to let go and be light, rather than heavy.

Some of the lessons regularly readers of this blog-memoir will recognize: “This whole story, and other ones in the book, show that deleting details is a bad move, as you never know when circumstances change and a number sparks to life again.” Remember “Snapchat in Game?” That’s what I’m saying there. Girls are mercurial and pretty random, and you never know when one is going to turn back around into you. It is unwise to rely exclusively on rebounds but you will get some when you get good.

The psychology behind seduction and seducers is also of interest, at least to me. In the beginning Torero writes that “By the age of 23 I had slept with 2 women.” No wonder he later became a PUA. I had a relatively normal adolescent and college experience, as I started having sex on the early side of normal and never stopped. I waas at or close to what PUA guys call “abundance mentality.”I had crushes and oneitis problems, like most guys, but my past is nothing like Torero’s. Unlike many guys I’ve never had a long drought (except in my 20s when my now-ex had our second daughter, but that’s another story). That may be why I’m tiring of the game and grind while some older guys still love it. I feel like I’ve done it too long.

I don’t want to claim that I was a master seducer. I wasn’t. I’m not now. My younger self mostly had what I would now call eco system game: school and sports. Because I was obsessed with my sport I built up a solid body and solid group of people I knew. That continued into a job involving it, and into college. Also, as players know, the better your body the better your dating life will go (within limits and subject to diminishing returns like every other activity… I have known gym rats who’d be better served cutting their two hours a day in the gym and meeting actual girls) and that is particularly true among younger girls. Of course looks alone are not enough and especially for women a guy’s looks are linked to his status. But I do think I’ve coasted on looks and things like quitting sugar have been to a boon to both my physical self and confidence. Looks are also more important for online dating than off, in my experience, and quitting sugar while lifting assists here too.

At the end of the book Torero is a sage:

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better your vibe, the better your approaches and dates go, and the better they go, the better your vibe. I felt like I was indestructible.

It’s fun reading these hybrid memoir-textbooks, as they teach me about the writer but also about the reader. My game has never been as tight as many of these guys, and there is a concept or slider in pop psychology that may explain why: some people are “satisficers” and others are “maximizers.” As the terms imply, satisficers keep trying until the satisfaction point for their drive or desire, while maximizers want to reach the highest possible level or state. For someone doing game a maximizer seeks some combination of the absolute hottest, younger, most loyal girls, or maybe the most extreme experiences (like three ways).

Satisficers however seek “good enough” and stop there and that has mostly described me. Which explains why I have never had the energy to really press for achievements like Torero’s. To be sure I’ve had success and some crazy stories, a few of which I’ve shared here, but nothing like the quantity of women described in Daygame. Generally I find one I like and get into a mini relationship that generally lasts three to twenty-four months. Then I begin cranking again.

At first I wasn’t consciously doing this, but over time I realized it. I think I am just too lazy to bother getting really good, but this doesn’t bother me much and I’m glad there are guys who go all the way. Reading about the Elon Musks of seduction is fascinating. I’ve had some high eights and nines and while they were wonderful, the truth is that when I’m in a woman I don’t care that much about whether she’s a decent seven or a high eight. The latter is better but in my life, especially now, there aren’t a lot of high eights out there. A while ago I dated a girl who was 19 and IMO a solid 8, with things only breaking down about 20 months in when she demanded to move in and I said no. But even with a solid 8, by the 50th or 100th sex session a guy acclimates to her body. She normalizes.

Back to Torero. Interspersed among the stories are big-picture ideas, like this:

When it comes to seduction, girls don’t want logic, they want emotions. The problem is that guys approach dating and daygame from a logical perspective, when really what they should be getting better at is seeing it from the female perspective.

Absolutely. Definitely an error I made when I was younger. The book is filled with mentions of mistakes I have made. If the next generation of guys internalize these ideas maybe they will avoid the mistakes. Most guys of course are too lazy to read books, so they will make the same errors, but the knowledge is there.

If I have a criticism of the book it is that it doesn’t look enough at the dark side. Intense gaming can be isolating and very few guys share the need to do intense game. In addition I read one of Krauser’s books in which he describes Torero going deep into the void in the 2012 – 13 period. That has been excised from this book, so one would never know it. Almost all positive things also have their shadow, and the lack of shadow here makes me doubt it more than I otherwise would.

Torero also mentions going to Oxford and studying with Richard Dawkins, but he eventually becomes a primary school teacher. Perhaps the UK is different from the U.S., but in the U.S. it’s very rare for graduates of elite universities to go into low status, low pay professions like primary school teaching. So why’d he do it? What led him there? We don’t know. Maybe it isn’t important. But it seems strange from an American reader’s eyes.

 

Advertisements

Bike Girl: Good and Bad

Good:

1. Sex. Does everything I want. Likes being submissive. Likes the sex tapes. Sex is extremely good. She follows well and trusts me to lead.

2. Fitness. Not much into lifting but likes yoga. A solid seven who is considerably younger than me and deeply into me: probably not that uncommon for the top game guys, but not that common for guys not putting in much effort, I think. Her food habits aren’t great but I bring them up.

3. Likes to read, or reads when I read. A lot of girls demand constant stimulation or spend their lives staring into their phones; when I read she reads.

4. Seems to like me. There are a lot of girls who will have a lot of sex, but they don’t seem to really like me that much (or the guy they’re dating, if they’re dating someone else and I’m observing them). Don’t really get why this dynamic happens but it’s common enough to note it.

5. Strong feminine vibes. Again, hard to define what this means but I know it when I see it.

6. We had our first four-way (switching with another couple) and it went well. When I have more than two minutes I’ll write about that. It was pretty standard from my perspective and pretty standard is very good.

Bad:

1. Messiness. Extremely messy apartment, although she’s tried to make an effort to change because she can figure out my reaction to it. This will prevent any attempt at co-habitation.

2. Kind of basic. Hard to describe exactly what this means too, but she’s not that smart and not that motivated. I think she’s a gallon of water that takes the shape of whatever man she pours herself into. But it sounds like she’s not had a lot of long-term relationships, so maybe she just goes from guy to guy. Because I don’t believe most of what women say (everyone has a narrative) I can’t judge her relationship past well. She speaks well of exes, which is a good sign in my view. When I’m not around I think she’s on her phone all the time, but she can turn it off when I’m around. For now.

3. Related to #2, I think she wants a way out of the office grind and sees me as a potential way out. I downplay income stuff deliberately but if you’re around someone long enough they put it together. Plus one of my go-to lines is, “I’m used to telling people what to do.” Which is somewhat true but also works well.

4. A little clingy. Not real bad, and this could be a “good” sign because she really likes me, and relationships are always better when the woman is more into the man than vice-versa. Women need someone to look up to.

5. Doesn’t have many actual skills. This is related to #3. So few girls know how to cook or clean or just manage life. It’s like, “What do I need you for?” Sex is cheap and girls seem not to have figured this out. If she only brings sex to a relationship then the relationship is probably not going to last, because all the other things in life still need doing. I have talked to Bike Girl about this a little bit, but she thinks that love conquers all. No, honey, it doesn’t. Infatuation makes people think that in the thrill of a new relationship, but the real world works differently.

Neutral:

1. As usual, after a couple months the girl I thought was OMG so hot is still pretty but no longer captivating. I wish it weren’t true but it is.

2. She is open to the idea of an MFF threesome.

3. She has close friends and confidants, whereas a lot of girls are totally lonely or have “friends” who aren’t really friends.

4. She actually wants more sex than me on average, and having so much with her drains me enough to prevent me from pursing other leads. Sounds like a plus, but whenever a guy stops approaching the well dries up. My well stays somewhat full due to kink and non-monogamy, but the highest-caliber girls don’t usually come from there.

I don’t know how other guys deal with career, primary partner, kids, and gym. I’m efficient but it feels like something’s gotta give among those four.

As always I don’t know how to evaluate many things.

“The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures”

I was listening to and nominally participating in an inane female conversation about social media, and two women were talking about Instagram and the unwritten “rules” about posting to Instagram. At one point I just interjected and said, “The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures.”

They agreed that I “got it.” One asked me if I have Instagram, and I truthfully said that I have an account but don’t use it. For some reason a lot of chicks like to tell me about the pictures of whatever thing they did and will then sign me up to follow them on Instagram. Fine with me, but I don’t interact or look at it.

I told them that if they want to find higher-quality guys, they should spend less time on social media and more time in the real world. One agreed and one argued that social media was “fun” and “important.” There was nothing to argue again because the point is so inane.

For guys, liking a woman’s social media posts is just a demonstration of lower value. Women know this yet many guys do it anyway. Women who post pictures of themselves in pretty addresses or bikinis get endless waves of validation and attention, but deep inside the women themselves know that the attention is meaningless.

Online and off, less is often more. I do use some Facebook and WhatsApp, but for me the main purpose is to focus on meeting up. Any woman you can’t get on a date might as well be invisible to you.

Social media is deceptive because it can make a guy think he’s making progress when in actuality he is either not making progress or is actively moving himself back. Generic likes and “so hot” comments just convey thirst.

I did tell those two girls that my most interesting social media is anonymous and NSFW, which is true and intrigued them, but I refused to give specifics. Holding back is sometimes better than spewing out.

I have a bunch of other stories to write, including one about Bike Girl’s first foursome, with a couple who I’ve known for a while from the sex-club scene. I also have a half-written post about swinging and non-monogamy for RP guys.

This is a continuation of my points in “Men, game, and social media strategies.” In my view, guys are well-served by minimal interactions on social media.

Daygame failures in Nashville [FR]

In Nashville I got inspired by Days of Game and others, so I decided to do some day and early nightgame. I’ll spoil the story and say I didn’t get laid or even any near misses, but I did have a couple amusing interactions.

Unless I’m missing something there are two major sections for game in Nashville: the very busy section around Broadway, between 1st and 5th or so, and, probably, some areas near Vanderbilt University, although I didn’t see much walking.

Some Nashville impression: there are lots of tragic fatties. So many times I saw girls or packs of girls who looked good from a distance, only to get closer and think they might be a little heavy, only to get closer still and find they’re nowhere near the acceptable quality line for me. My overall approach rate was low. Online dating might be a nightmare here due to the number of bovine girls.

To be sure I did see some stunners and, oddly, got more traction with two stunners than some less attractive ones I opened anyway. For guys, it’s useful to remember that the challenge a girl presents does not always increase monotonically with hotness. In my life some incredibly stunners have been very easy and pleasant to get into bed and some marginal girls have been brutally hard or impossible.

One of the hotter girls I saw, I saw near Vanderbilt while I was on an errand: she was wearing yoga pants and a tank top, and she made strong eye contact. The opener was something about her style and then a tease about whether she was really an athletic girl or only a poseur. A common one for me and she hooked. She was on her way somewhere and I took a number. A solid eight, if you like lean girls curved in the right places like I do. Pretty close to the Playboy figure.

She was only 20 so we met for tea later, as I figured I’d bounce to the hotel roof with bubbly if it went well. First ten minutes were fine until I began sexual spiking, which she did not like. No, that’s not enough: SHE DID NOT LIKE GOING SEXUAL. I ignored that and kept going. A little light touching on her hands and wrists made her visibly recoil. I asked why she recoiled and she said she “didn’t like being touched.”

I asked the obvious, “Why not?” She said, she “just didn’t,” so I knew it was over, but why not see the cards? I said that must make dating hard and she said she wasn’t interested in dating. I said that we wouldn’t get along if she didn’t like dating either. After that I told her she should probably go. That seemed to surprise her. All this was delivered in a gentle, slightly curious manner; if you deliver it harshly you will hurt the girl for no reason (and yourself).

Next day she added me on Facebook. I know, know, KNOW that girls are capricious and irrational, but this story is a good reminder. It’s also still a (pointless) ego boost getting hot 20-year-old girls out, even weirdos like this one.

Another girl appeared in the early evening, walking along a short strip near some bars. She wore a red shirt that plunged down almost to her belly button. I opened by telling her that I thought she was cute and that her style is unusual in Nashville (which is true). She did a full stop and we talked about NYC versus Nashville, then I gave a false time constraint and invited her in to one of the bars right next to us. I gave her a high eight from a distance, still a high seven to low eight up close.

Bar was way too loud and we basically talked in each other’s ears for for about for thirty minutes. She was very responsive to touch on her arms and lower back. Good signs. We kissed lightly. But she had to meet friends and I got her number and said we ought to meet later. I didn’t want to tag along. We traded numbers and she left. Responded to my opening texts, then I sent her another text a couple hours later inviting her out. She replied ambiguously and then the line went dead. I had to stop texting to avoid being needy.

Next day I tried a Torero recovery text and she apologized but said she was busy that night, the last I was in town, and suggested the next night. Too bad. Maybe next time. She may have been a time waster or attention sink, or logistics may have been in the way, or other guys might have lured her away with their birdsong. It’s usually impossible to separate this kind of time-waster from a keen girl until it’s time to bounce home or hit the bed.

This is a weird one for me: I met a mother-daughter duo downtown near all the honkytonks and invited them into a bar. I was trying to figure out how to isolate the daughter, but half an hour after we first walked in the daughter left to use the bathroom and the mother tried to stick her tongue down my throat. I backed off. Role reversal. The daughter got back and looked completely disgusted. The mom asked for a few minutes, so I wandered away. No other good targets in the bar, so I tried chatting with a mixed group of guys and girls about Nashville vs other cities.

Mom came back to get me and daughter looked more unhappy than ever. I asked the mom if I could have a couple minutes alone with daughter and the daughter made a sour face and said no, like a child. I got out. I get the feeling this isn’t the first time that particular interaction has gone down.

Waiting for an uber in the afternoon, a guy and two girls stopped near me, young undergrads. The prettier girl was very pretty and turning around because she didn’t want to go with the other two and was planning to turn around. I was waiting so close that I heard their conversation. I made strong eye contact with the pretty one and said that she should hop in my uber to go back. Extremely strong eye contact made her say almost nothing. Her friends began telling her not to go, but she barely looked at them. I began my speech about the door to adventure opening, using eye mesmer the whole way. I felt the bubble and like her friends were outside it, and I barely even looked at them. The guy looked and sounded like he was 14. The car pulled up and she was still standing there, swaying a little.

I got in, and she still didn’t move. The last thing I said was, “The door to adventure is closing.” But she didn’t get in. This is lame to read about but felt very powerful in the moment. Another opportunity seen in the moment and seized, though it came to nothing. Bike Girl was similar, but she came to fruition.

Overall it was a pretty weak showing, even for someone like me who does not have top-notch daygame, and I got a lot of boring blowouts. Some younger girls said they were married. Whenever possible it’s a good idea to assume the responsibility of failure and ask what can be learned. Sometimes the situation is genuinely beyond control. In Nashville, I didn’t find a good consistent street for daygame or early night game, even though there must be one or more. If I’d been willing to stay out till closing time I might’ve succeeded but most nights I want to head in by midnight if nothing is happening.

My vibe is pretty different than most guys in Nashville, which I think helps with the higher-end girls. Guys tend toward country-pickup-truck types (if you’re not familiar with the United States you may never have seen this type of guy, as I think it’s pretty peculiar to the States) or sports-bro types. I tend towards GQ-Don-Draper-exec style, though usually without the suits. It would take a lot more effort to know for sure whether my vibe would really work in Nashville or no, but I did feel pretty conspicuous, in a good way, on the streets.

I wish I’d brought Bike Girl with and taken her to the Nashville swingers club Menages, but I couldn’t have known that before I went. There were also many bachelorette parties on the streets, most of them filled with fatties, and I saw no way for a solo guy to break into those. Not early, certainly. Maybe late when all the women are drunk.

The restaurants in Nashville are filled with fried chicken, steak, sandwiches, and simple carbs. No wonder there are so many fatties. The food is not good for anyone doing zero sugar, or just low carb. Food and lifting discipline are hard on the road and made harder by the food choices around.

Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy

Mark Regnerus says, “My central claim in this book is that cheap sex is plentiful—that it’s flooding the market in sex and relationships—and that this has had profound influence on how American men and women relate to each other.” Yeah, he’s right, for the very top guys. Top 20% probably. The other guys are playing videogames and bitching on the Internet. Game is so important because the top guys are getting the sex. If you don’t learn game and you’re not a natural, all the other guys are going to be getting laid and you’re going to be whining instead of learning. It must be dispiriting to be the average guy reading about all the sex other guys are having and not having it himself. The average guy is too lazy to turn his frustration into action,  so he keeps sitting on the couch, while the guys who use frustration to propel themselves into action start getting laid.

The book is based around the myth that there’s this sexual cornucopia out there for guys. There is, yeah, and I’ve had it. I’ve had it in general and I’ve had it through the swinger and open-relationship worlds. But access isn’t free and it isn’t that easy for the vast majority of guys. If it were the game world wouldn’t be blowing up like it is.

Most women are unsatisfied too, because guys have left their masculine identities behind. I used to think women were just lying whiners, but now that I’ve learned enough game to evaluate guys the way women do, I see their point. Sleeping with a fat or skinny fat video game player who is unemployed or underemployed can’t be much fun for most women, even women who are themselves fat or skinny fat. Women are unsatisfied because guys are unsatisfying. Learning game makes women happier too. They want to be seduced but most men are too inept to bother learning how to do it.

Guys who aren’t red pill and getting laid are going to get angry reading the book. One Regnerus interviewee, Sarah, says, “I meet people in strange places. . . . It just happens.” From her perspective I bet she’s being honest, but she means that she takes zero responsibility for her decisions and she also only responds to what men offer her. Only the boldest and most game-trained men open a lot of strangers, so she’s naturally selecting for guys who are in it for sex. Kinda stupid if you think about it, right? But she doesn’t, or doesn’t critically, kind of like how fat guys playing video games wonder why they get no tail.

Individual responsibility is the basis of achievement. Sarah gets around to fucking “David, a musician who seemed more committed to making it in the industry than to making it work with her” (2) No shit. Musicians don’t want long-term relationships, and music is an almost purely mating call signal with little long-term economic viability. Guys who do music are specializing in casual sex. And I recommend that guys work to specialize in casual sex (e.g. hit the gym, don’t eat sugar, learn game) rather than civilization-building (get a job, maximize income via long work hours, etc.). Guys need some minimum viable amount of money, but the rest is game.

Regnerus also cites a precursor book, Anthony Giddens’s The Transformation of Intimacy, and in that book Giddens predicts how the

achievement of reciprocal sexual pleasure [becomes] a key element in whether the relationship is sustained or dissolved. The cultivation of sexual skills, the capability of giving and experiencing sexual satisfaction, on the part of both sexes, [has] become organizad reflexively via a multitude of sources of sexual information, advice and training.

Couldn’t agree more. Guys need to develop sexual skills. Women would rather be with an exciting deadbeat who gets them off than a boring office guy who doesn’t. If she keeps getting off she’ll keep coming back. She wants to be taken to a sex shop, pick out some toys, and then have you use them on her. The first time a woman gets off with a plug in the back and a man in her front, she often thinks she’s seen God. Doesn’t matter that it’s a physiological illusion. You want her to think you’re Jesus. Cultivate your sexual skills. Great lovers are made much more than they’re born.

Regnerus says, “Opportunistic men are pressing women to operate more like men by privileging the physical over all other traits, and women—to mate at all—feel like they must play along.” He means, “women, to mate with the highest-value men, feel like they must play along.” Plus, a lot of women bring zero skills to their relationships. I’ve met a million slovenly women with no cooking skills who literally bring no concrete skills to the relationship apart from sex. If all they bring is sex, then yeah, guys are going to evaluate them on looks.

I’ve literally had this conversation with exes who bring up the ultimatum: move in or I’m moving on. And when I say I won’t live with a woman, they want to know why, and I ask, “What skills do you bring to this relationship?” They’re confused and then I point out to them that I’m a better cook, I make more money than they do, and I have better mechanical skills than they do. So what are they going to do to make my life and our household better? What gains from trade are we going to reap?

Then they start crying and I feel bad about making them cry.

We break up anyway.

Women won’t stay in uncommitted relationships for more than two years. Usually much shorter than that. Personally I’m happy to make them my official girlfriend as long as they’re willing to do swinging and non-monogamy, which, as I’ve said before, are underrated for top 20% RP guys.

Women want guys who make more money than they do, but if you’re a guy who makes more money you are also putting a lot of it at risk: “Women are far more likely to want out of their marriages than men. Among divorcees, 55 percent of women said they wanted their marriages to end more than their spouses, while only 29 percent of men reported the same.” So there’s a paradox: guys who want to marry often can’t because women won’t take their broke selves, while guys who don’t want to marry because they have too much to lose are often most sought by women.

Don’t get married. I’ve said it a million times before and will keep saying it till guys wise up. If you absolutely must must must must get married, do it after age 35 and after at least 50+ partners. Otherwise you just don’t know women. You might think you know women, but you don’t. When I was 21 I was like, “I’m such a stud, I’ve banged chicks, I know it all.”

I didn’t know shit.

I still don’t know that much. But from talking to a lot of guys, it’s apparent that I know more than the average guy. Which isn’t very much.

There is much more to this book than I’ve written here and I recommend it to all guys who want a better view of what’s happening. Regnerus doesn’t go all the way RP but he’s damned close.

Don’t get married and make sure you get that DNA test

So. The new Esther Perel book, The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity ,is out. I read her first book Mating in Captivity and that book solidified to me how dangerous Western marriage is. I’ve been slipping Mating in Captivity to friends, after a couple of beers, for years. I’m sure most of them don’t read it. Then they marry and divorce and cry when their exes take all their money.

You need to read the new book, although I’ve only gotten through a few pages. This is an important part:

Whether we like it or not, philandering is here to stay. And all the ink spilled advising us on how to “affair-proof” our relationships has not managed to curb the number of men and women who wander. Infidelity happens in good marriages, in bad marriages, and even when adultery is punishable by death.

She’s right. So the solution is, do not get married. And if she says that baby is yours, get the DNA test to prove it. RP guys like to say there are guys who are cheated on and guys who are cheated with. Be the latter. Don’t get married. It’s not impossible that a married (not to me) woman had my kid, and I should write that story (she was married, work weekend, she wanted to use a condom…).

Know how to “rethink infidelity?” Rethink marriage. Specifically, guys shouldn’t marry, at least not while the legal system in the United States is stacked against them.

Feminists have been castigating marriage for decades. They’re going to get a world where guys don’t want to subsidize chicks. Which isn’t going to make a lot of women happy. Guys are waking up.

“What are your rules for talking about RP concepts?”

In response to “Warning about falling into the girl’s frame,” on Reddit this guy asked:

What are your rules for dispensing knowledge? (RP and non. RP)…. Who/When/Why. Seems there are a lot of stupid people and thus many opportunities are presented.

Man, that’s a good question and there are no hard and fast rules. Most of the time a guy shouldn’t talk about RP stuff at all, and to the extent I do, I do with women I’ve already been sleeping with for a while and who are thus in my frame already. Like that warning post: I’ve been sleeping with Bike Girl for a while. It’s possible to drop RP hints here and there as teases, but I don’t recommend going into full professor mode, probably ever. But there are a few principles for when you do talk…

1) Never use any of the jargon. Ever.

2) Must be done in a playful, cheeky way. This goes back to the idea of teasing.

3) Should be done either 1:1 or in small groups. In large groups you don’t want standard BP conditioning to take over.

4) Less is more. Don’t address someone’s entire worldview or ideology. Don’t be a priest. In the example above, I didn’t shit on feminism or make huge pronouncements on all aspects of men versus women. The point was constrained to one facet of male-female dynamics and centered on the friend.

5) Be ready to back down. This may not read as “alpha” to most guys online, but social circumstances aren’t an academic debate. You’re chatting with people and it’s not worth blowing up good social vibes for some issue most people don’t give a shit about. This is related to point 2. If someone gets huffy, just say, “Whatever, live your life” and move on. The smile or smirk are key. Amused mastery is better than being “right,” except sometimes at work where being right matters more. Social context matters for everything.

6) The real knowledge comes not from what you say but how you live. Your life is the best example. Pretty much no one cares about what you say (sorry, but it’s true). People admire or dislike you for how you live and what you do. People listen to high-status people they admire, not some blowhard with an average or below-average life, even if that blowhard is technically “right” about whatever. In an engineering meeting, being right matters, and in most other human social endeavors it does not. Many celebrities who you and I are think are dumb have more influence than you or I because they’re widely admired.

I’m sure there are others, but those come to mind. When in doubt, shut up. Seriously. Shutting up is underrated. Most people like to hear themselves talk and talk about themselves. Let them. I’ve slept with far more girls through shutting up at the right time than I have through talking or being “right.” Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People is still a great book. It’s not clear from the original post I wrote, but in that conversation I talked far less than I listened, and I listened for a long time to the friend. This may read as “beta” to less experienced guys, but, again, most people like to broadcast and don’t care about the objective reality of a situation or how to improve their life. People who really want to improve their lives are the exceptions. Look at the fatties all around you: most would like to not be fat, but they can’t be bothered to improve their lives.

These things are hard to do and require social savvy, and that’s why most RP people say, “Don’t talk about RP.” That’s much easier and less likely to lead to errors. A delicate touch, if any, is necessary.