IOI nonsense

[Mot1veProgress]

No, you escalate, and her response will be the only indicator you need. Just do it and basta.

If I speak during 20 minutes to a woman it's because we are able to have an interesting conversation together, so I don't care as long as I have a good time. Women know whether you are after them sexualy or not, you do not need to explain them. If she pats you on the back it's because she is not attracted OR you didn't show her your own desire.

And if the conversation is sh!t to the point that you are wasting your time then you don't need any other indicators.

IOIs, bull**** or not, you do not care.

You haven't read my earlier posts it seems. I don't wait for IOI's to escalate.. But that's because I have alot of experience.. But to guys who still have issues picking up women, IOI's are great indicators.. Stop basing everything upon your own perspective for god sakes.. and realize there's people who are learning the pickup game who make good use of these things..

Not everyone wants to conversate with a chick for 20-30 minutes and talk their heads off just to have some other guy come through and take the chick away because he knows how to show her more fun than just a conversation. Some guys are younger, want to have fun, get the number, go for the prize or meet her later when they're in a better suited place for proper escalation.. than an alcohol induced club full of testosterone and sexual energy..

All these one dimensional posts/statements some of you guys make tells me you guys just think way too linear.. or are just not experienced enough to understand the wide scope and spectrum of social and sexual interactions with women of different ages.. and not just some 40 yr old hags that want to talk for hours.

If you're looking for platonic conversations, why are you even concerned with IOI's to begin with?

 

[wifehunter]

Why are they nonsense? I mean if you can't tell whether a girl likes you or not, you already have an issue.. But to knock IOI's as if they are flying winged hallucinations telling you "heres another sign the girl likes you".. is just absurd.

You guys act like there's some sort of gun attached to your head telling you to focus on the indicators .. No.. whether you focus on them or not, they are there.

IOI's save your ass alot of time instead of wasting time with women who you find are not interested after you talked their ear off for 10 minutes.. like seriously, what are you dudes not getting? If you get indicators that she likes you, you escalate. if you dont, you dont sit there wasting time for 20 minutes with a woman who ends up patting your back like "i think i made mysel fa new FRIEND" at the end of your efforts.

I guess IOIs are good for one thing... letting you know you're doing something right, and not a 300lb gorilla with warts all over your face and snot dripping out of your nose! ...unless chicks are into that these days! LOL!

 

[Mot1veProgress]

I guess IOIs are good for one thing... letting you know you're doing something right, and not a 300lb gorilla with warts all over your face and snot dripping out of your nose! ...unless chicks are into that these days! LOL!

Simply put, they're good for not wasting your time when you want to do more than just talk and make friends. Whether people use them, focus on them, they're there . Girls do things subconsciously and some things they do consciously when they like a guy and are attracted to him. It's great to know what these things(IOI's)) are.

 

[Bingo-Player]

Why are they nonsense? I mean if you can't tell whether a girl likes you or not, you already have an issue.. But to knock IOI's as if they are flying winged hallucinations telling you "heres another sign the girl likes you".. is just absurd.

You guys act like there's some sort of gun attached to your head telling you to focus on the indicators .. No.. whether you focus on them or not, they are there.

IOI's save your ass alot of time instead of wasting time with women who you find are not interested after you talked their ear off for 10 minutes.. like seriously, what are you dudes not getting? If you get indicators that she likes you, you escalate. if you dont, you dont sit there wasting time for 20 minutes with a woman who ends up patting your back like "i think i made mysel fa new FRIEND" at the end of your efforts.

i escalate with every woman im interested in regardless of IOI's

IOI's are just more PUA bullsh1t churned out to sell books to guilliable mugs

 

[wifehunter]

i escalate with every woman im interested in regardless of IOI's

IOI's are just more PUA bullsh1t churned out to sell books to guilliable mugs

Yeah, I'm thinking IOIs are mostly manipulation just throw us guys off. So when a girl is actually interested, we discount it.

Great world we live in! LoL! /verbal irony

 

[LiveYourDream]

A true Don Juan does not seek out or wait for IOI's. A true DJ will go after what he wants, when he wants it, without hesitation. Any IOI's that happen to be present, he will simply note and use to his advantage. Above all, his confidence and self perception are never dependent on any outcome. A true DJ takes full responsibility for his life and creating the life he wants.

A DJ Want-To-Be is always seeking out IOI's, to calm his fears and insecurities. He doesn't yet have a solid sense of who he is, so he continually seeks validation outside himself. The greater his insecurity the greater his misinterpretation of ordinary female friendliness, smiles, and small talk, etc to be IOI's directed at him personally. A DJ Want-To-Be will only act upon IOI's real or those he has imagined, before proceeding. His confidence and self perception are highly outcome dependent.

Almost all rejection of the DJ Want-To-Be is blamed on things outside himself, such as the woman's behavior, other men, the particular circumstance, timing, etc. He perceives his lack of success with women, as actual proof, of all that is wrong with the current state of male/female dynamics. He does not perceive it, but he comes across to others as a perpetual victim. He continues trying to control outside circumstances. He keeps mistakenly believing that if he just learns all the best DJ rules/strategies, and then remembers to use the "right one" at the "right time", then he will finally attain success in his quest for pvssy, self worth, and self confidence.

 

[AttackFormation]

I don't get why y'all are completely trashing IOIs. Haven't you seen nature? approaching a female who isn't in some way signalling that she is willing and fertile is AFAIK mostly something humans do. Our "mating process" is some kind of bizarre mashup of different styles instead of having a clear one, if you compare us to other mammals. Animals like chimpanzees operate on deductive logic, a concept that we are taught on for example The Rational Male is counter-productive to getting human females. If I had to pick one single style most similar to ours it'd be peacocks, but even theirs is so much less complex and more direct that you can't really make the comparison still. I don't think you can find a single species in the animal kingdom where females don't either send out unmistakable signals or directly cooperate, except humans. And you guys are saying women shouldn't have to give any? come on. It's one thing to try anyway even if you don't get an IOI, but to call men who look for them weak, insecure or whatever, that's just unnatural, shaming males and pandering to females.

Even on this board the white knight mindset still lives, masquerading as being something else in threads like this. It's that ingrained in us. What worries me more than its general presence, is right above this post we have a female directly endorsing that mindset and guys are agreeing with her. Men are their own worst enemies because of how dumb we are.

 

[LiveYourDream]

I don't get why y'all are completely trashing IOIs. Haven't you seen nature? approaching a female who isn't in some way signalling that she is willing and fertile is AFAIK mostly something humans do. Our "mating process" is some kind of bizarre mashup of different styles instead of having a clear one, if you compare us to other mammals. Animals like chimpanzees operate on deductive logic, a concept that we are taught on for example The Rational Male is counter-productive to getting human females. If I had to pick one single style most similar to ours it'd be peacocks, but even theirs is so much less complex and more direct that you can't really make the comparison still. I don't think you can find a single species in the animal kingdom where females don't either send out unmistakable signals or directly cooperate, except humans. And you guys are saying women shouldn't have to give any? come on. It's one thing to try anyway even if you don't get an IOI, but to call men who look for them weak, insecure or whatever, that's just unnatural, shaming males and pandering to females. Even on this board the white knight mindset still lives, masquerading as being something else in threads like this. It's that ingrained in us.

I think IOI's are a great part of the feminine/masculine dance. Absolutely!

My intent was not to shame anyone for taking note of IOI's at all. I think any smart, aware, masculine man would, as it's to his advantage.

It's when men write posts about the check out girl, at the grocery store who smiled at him and it creates so much momentum in his mind, that he posts here and thinks about it for days afterwards. To most she was just being friendly while doing her job. ( I am not talking about the exception.) To a really insecure man looking for validation through IOI's, he may build up her simple gesture into far more in his mind, than the reflexive gesture it was to her. My point was NOT be dependent on IOI's or create a false sense of oneself based on them.

See IOI's, take note of them, use them to your advantage--ABSOLUTELY!!

If a man lacks a sense of self worth, self confidence, a sense of who he is...I believe he can become misguided to think that tracking IOI's will resolve those issues. Self worth, self confidence, and a man knowing who he is, if it is real, will come from the inside out. If it's a facade, it's based on how others, often women respond to him. Then his self confidence, self worth and sense of himself, changes with tide, often at the whim of some woman's attention, or lack of. No man's thoughts of himself should be determined by the mood or whim of any woman.

My post was simply meant as a reality check, recommending that IOI's are used for the goal for which they are designed, in my opinion. My caution intended, was that chasing IOI's could be a trap, if a man is mistakenly thinking that getting so many IOI's is how a man gain's TRUE confidence, self worth, or a sense of himself.

In my opinion the characteristics of a TRUE DJ are outcome independent. Outcome independence is TRUE freedom, TRUE confidence, TRUE self worth and a TRUE sense of one self. I wish for every man to know and have those truly!

 

[fastlife]

And you guys are saying women shouldn't have to give any? come on. It's one thing to try anyway even if you don't get an IOI, but to call men who look for them weak, insecure or whatever, that's just unnatural, shaming males and pandering to females.

There are only 3 reasons to care about IOI's.

1.) To give yourself permission to approach. This is reactive--it's letting the female determine the terms of the interaction or whether the interaction even takes place.

2.) To give yourself permission not to approach. Again, reactive. Again letting her dictate the interaction (or lack thereof). You're protecting your ego from rejection--not even real rejection, just the possibility of rejection.

3.) To get validation. Again, reactive. Oh, she smiled at me and played with her hair. I don't even have to approach--I wasn't even that into her anyway (your ego's needs got met; you get to rationalize not taking action--mental masturbation).

Of course, guys will rationalize that by acting according to IOI's they're saving time. But that's not true. They're saving their ego. In the two minutes it takes you to wait for her to do something you could've approached and gotten rejected (and moved on) or you could've gotten her to comply and moved her to a different area of the venue (and be that much closer to getting what you wanted). By acting and getting rejected, you 1.) save time and 2.) save mental space (which you'd spend speculating about what she's thinking).

The issue with your post is you're still operating from an egalitarian viewpoint. Well, why doesn't she have to perform? Because she's a female--the burden of performance and rejection is always on the male (in every animal species, no?). You're also discounting the fact that humans have two operating systems going--the subconscious (biology, instincts, etc. etc.) and the conscious (social conditioning, self-monitoring, the ego, etc.). It's a mistake to presume that humans can't consciously override subconscious behavior. For instance, we're here to learn game--which allows us to consciously convey mating signals of genetic fitness that are subconscious in origin.

Do you think girls can't/don't do the same? LOL. There are shy girls who have no game and will actively suppress involuntary IOI's (just like there are shy guys who'll avert eye contact, close their posture, etc. around girls they're attracted to). There are also girls that have tons of game and can and will convey IOI's to MANIPULATE men. I worked in a breastaurant (think Hooter's). Do you think those girl didn't know how to provide exact imitations of IOI's--I'm talking, hair flipping, eye-play, even blushing--to get men they had NO INTEREST in to respond accordingly. They had men buying them smart phones, cosigning cars, orbiting their FB, taking them on trips. If you approached one of these girls outside of work, you would swear up and down her interest level was through the ****ing roof.

I mean, I get it. I used to be the same way. I had an ego, I was/am good looking, I was entitled and I hated being rejected. If a girl didn't make 90% of the moves (why should I have to do anything?) she didn't get play--but do you know what girls consistently and most effectively convey the highest interest level? Cluster B's. I'm not here because I couldn't get laid from hot girls. I'm here because the girls that I slept with were crazy. I wasn't sleeping with the shy girl who had one or two partners and may have really liked me but wasn't socially savvy enough to project that interest level; if she's hot, she seems like a self-absorbed b*tch--and she may even act like a b*tch when I approach her (because she has an ego to protect, too). But that same girl might be sticky sweet once she let's her guard down--and at some point the script'll flip and she'll start putting in work to retain my interest.

Even on this board the white knight mindset still lives, masquerading as being something else in threads like this. It's that ingrained in us. What worries me more than its general presence, is right above this post we have a female directly endorsing that mindset and guys are agreeing with her.

The thing is @LiveYourDream is right--and I'd receive absolutely no benefit from agreeing with a woman old enough to be my mother on the internet who I'll never meet. You can't change reality, no matter how inconvenient it is for you. You have your own set of excuses of why you can't cold approach in Sweden (which is where American guys go to get laid; I've heard it's especially good for black guys from the States who want to lay white girls). You've said yourself that the girls there seem shut off and aren't putting out IOI's (see: social conditioning).

But thoughts like that and relying on IOI's are really just self-limiting and allowing outside feedback (external validation/or lack thereof) to enter your feedback loop. When I approach a girl I really don't give a phuck how she's reacting. It's not like--Oh, she did this. Maybe I can do that. I'm thinking to myself: I'm the ****. This girl's totally in love with me. She's dying for me to take her home. She never enters my feedback loop. I'll be the **** whether she's playing with her hair or throwing her drink on me--obviously, there's a degree of calibration involved (which only comes from experience) that'll keep me from getting a drink thrown on me lol; but the fact that I'm totally unaffected by her is attractive and'll probably give me the results I'm looking for. Instincts'll take you a lot further than detached observance and rationalizing other people's behavior.

 

[LiveYourDream]

I value posts that share insight, truth and wisdom.
When those qualities are present in a post, the sex of the person who wrote it, matters little, if at all to me.

 

[AttackFormation]

There are only 3 reasons to care about IOI's.

1.) To give yourself permission to approach. This is reactive--it's letting the female determine the terms of the interaction or whether the interaction even takes place.

She still does, so what's the difference?

2.) To give yourself permission not to approach.

Again, reactive. Again letting her dictate the interaction (or lack thereof). You're protecting your ego from rejection--not even real rejection, just the possibility of rejection.

You are approaching her = you want something from her = she is in control. It's up to her whether she entertains you or not and with interest & skill she will. You thinking you're the one in control helps your mindset but doesn't change the facts. You might say "with game you'll make her be the one wanting something from you", but what that really will do is make you both want something from each other, which is exactly the same point of the IOI in the first place.

3.) To get validation. Again, reactive. Oh, she smiled at me and played with her hair. I don't even have to approach--I wasn't even that into her anyway (your ego's needs got met; you get to rationalize not taking action--mental masturbation).

*shrug* I don't look for IOIs for validation so...

Of course, guys will rationalize that by acting according to IOI's they're saving time. But that's not true. They're saving their ego. In the two minutes it takes you to wait for her to do something you could've approached and gotten rejected (and moved on) or you could've gotten her to comply and moved her to a different area of the venue (and be that much closer to getting what you wanted). By acting and getting rejected, you 1.) save time and 2.) save mental space (which you'd spend speculating about what she's thinking).

Maybe we are talking about different things. My concept of an IOI is when you attempt to make eye contact with a girl and she both meets it at all and doesn't have a negative or indifferent expression. I don't look for girls playing with their hair or whatever.

The issue with your post is you're still operating from an egalitarian viewpoint. Well, why doesn't she have to perform? Because she's a female--the burden of performance and rejection is always on the male (in every animal species, no?). You're also discounting the fact that humans have two operating systems going--the subconscious (biology, instincts, etc. etc.) and the conscious (social conditioning, self-monitoring, the ego, etc.). It's a mistake to presume that humans can't consciously override subconscious behavior. For instance, we're here to learn game--which allows us to consciously convey mating signals of genetic fitness that are subconscious in origin.

I'm not operating from an egalitarian viewpoint, I'm operating from a very sensible viewpoint. What kind of a human being can't make eye contact with someone she wants to talk to her? does she have some kind of handicap or gets panic attacks from it? You are right on the burden of performance and rejection in animals always being on males, but females signal their fertility (I would say willingness too, but animals take what they want through physical dominance unlike us and either don't need/care if the female is willing as long as she is fertile, or the female wants to procreate too because she is fertile and offers no resistance to the dominant male, so you can't cross it over to humans). I don't see how your two last sentences here are relevant to what I said.

Do you think girls can't/don't do the same? LOL. There are shy girls who have no game and will actively suppress involuntary IOI's (just like there are shy guys who'll avert eye contact, close their posture, etc. around girls they're attracted to). There are also girls that have tons of game and can and will convey IOI's to MANIPULATE men. I worked in a breastaurant (think Hooter's). Do you think those girl didn't know how to provide exact imitations of IOI's--I'm talking, hair flipping, eye-play, even blushing--to get men they had NO INTEREST in to respond accordingly. They had men buying them smart phones, cosigning cars, orbiting their FB, taking them on trips. If you approached one of these girls outside of work, you would swear up and down her interest level was through the ****ing roof.

That's where game comes in, of course the outcomes won't be perfect otherwise. The difference is you seem to think the girls are not accountable for themselves, while the guys are.

I mean, I get it. I used to be the same way. I had an ego, I was/am good looking, I was entitled and I hated being rejected. If a girl didn't make 90% of the moves (why should I have to do anything?) she didn't get play--but do you know what girls consistently and most effectively convey the highest interest level? Cluster B's. I'm not here because I couldn't get laid from hot girls. I'm here because the girls that I slept with were crazy. I wasn't sleeping with the shy girl who had one or two partners and may have really liked me but wasn't socially savvy enough to project that interest level; if she's hot, she seems like a self-absorbed b*tch--and she may even act like a b*tch when I approach her (because she has an ego to protect, too). But that same girl might be sticky sweet once she let's her guard down--and at some point the script'll flip and she'll start putting in work to retain my interest.

If she's too shy to look at you, and she's no longer a teenager, she has problems that she needs to deal with if she wants to meet guys. Even just looking at you and blushing would be totally fine. That's her problem, not mine. And now we are excusing b!tch behaviour because she has to protect her ego, but it's not okay for you to simply expect girls to be able to make eye contact and either do a slight smile or immediately blush? In nature, I would imagine that "cold approaching" gets more common the less desirable a male appears to females, much like how a guy who doesn't look like much outwards but has great game would cold approach to a higher degree. But do animals just approach females at random, blitzing through them all with no kind of signalling or backlash from doing so at all? h3ll no.

The thing is @LiveYourDream is right--and I'd receive absolutely no benefit from agreeing with a woman old enough to be my mother on the internet who I'll never meet. You can't change reality, no matter how inconvenient it is for you. You have your own set of excuses of why you can't cold approach in Sweden (which is where American guys go to get laid; I've heard it's especially good for black guys from the States who want to lay white girls). You've said yourself that the girls there seem shut off and aren't putting out IOI's (see: social conditioning).

I'm sure you can, like you could anywhere else if you're good at it. And by cold approaching I'm not counting environments where girls go to get approached whether it's for validation, sex or whatever like bars. The mere fact that such environments are relied on indicates that it's not within the norm of the culture to do truly cold approaches. I'm going to guess that those black guys went to clubs and both enjoy being in clubs and have good club game. I have an older step brother who does too, and who told me I needed to be more black (ie. like him) to find/get the girls who are "into black guys". Shame we're not all the same, I guess.

I have been careful not to seek to change reality because that's pointless as you rightly point out. That's why I'm doing things I think will help me in the location I'm at, which still don't prevent me from analysing it. And yes, I've said that (and more importantly keep hearing it from most everyone else I know), but I can't verify it due to lack of travelling.

But thoughts like that and relying on IOI's are really just self-limiting and allowing outside feedback (external validation/or lack thereof) to enter your feedback loop. When I approach a girl I really don't give a phuck how she's reacting. It's not like--Oh, she did this. Maybe I can do that. I'm thinking to myself: I'm the ****. This girl's totally in love with me. She's dying for me to take her home. She never enters my feedback loop. I'll be the **** whether she's playing with her hair or throwing her drink on me--obviously, there's a degree of calibration involved (which only comes from experience) that'll keep me from getting a drink thrown on me lol; but the fact that I'm totally unaffected by her is attractive and'll probably give me the results I'm looking for. Instincts'll take you a lot further than detached observance and rationalizing other people's behavior.

Again I think we are talking about different things. When I say IOI I mean basic acknowledgement that she has noted your existence and is positively inclined to you whether it's because she blushes, smiles, or whatever. And as I said in my previous post which I know I need to be clear about, I don't advocate "waiting" for these things or analyzing what a flick of her hair means or whatever (which is useless anyway since it's scientifically proven that girls deceive guys like that routinely, which you gave an example of earlier). If you see a girl you like you approach her, I'm totally in the boat on that. That's how I've done most of my cold approaches. But I also think not giving IOIs is both counter-productive and unnatural despite that.

 

[G_Govan]

I like using IOI's as a gauge to approach, but then I'm also not a fan of cold approaching, which is a pure lottery. I think some men have to rely on cold approaching otherwise they wouldn't get anywhere and I can understand that also.