Beta game does work, jut not predictably

[IASGame]

Let me preface the rest of the post with a statement that I believe is true:

Randomly scheduled rewards are often more effective at reinforcing behaviour than predictable rewards.

This "fact" has been scientifically tested in animals and is used in marketing, casinos (slot machines are a clear example) and in game design, particularly for games on mobiles with in-app purchases. World of Warcraft is certainly also using the mechanism, as is any collectible from that comes in packs.

I think outright stating that Beta game (stuff like "Choreplay") doesn't work at all is a small generalisation that can be a big obstacle to unplugging.

I haven't ran a serious statistical study so my belief could just be based on false positives (correlation doesn't mean causation), but I think it is more likely that Beta game does have some causation - in the sense that if Women are subconsciously wanting to reinforce Beta behaviour they would use the effective randomly scheduled reward whenever the Men pull the "lever" by applying Beta game.

If a male observes (even though only occasionally) positive results from Beta game this further prevents him from realizing it isn't very effective. Most people have very poor understanding of statistics, but if it never works it is much easier to spot that lack of effectiveness.

So I am not really disputing whether it is very effective (in my own experience and apparently the collective experience, it really isn't).
It simply doesn't work predictably and it probably doesn't work long-term (just like with casinos, the house "always" wins with statistically increasing inevitability).

I think this is an important subtlety that should be clarified in the community, if the goal is to improve the chances of getting others to unplug.

 

[bmp2cpm]

At the end of the day, a man doing the domestic house chores is not going to make his woman more faithful to him, e.g. she won't think "I won't have that affair I was planning because my man vacuumed the family room this morning." This never happens.

However, if a woman is emotionally distraught, eg, death of her father and she is just completely out of it and the man helps with the house chores for a short time when she really needs support, then in all likelyhood the woman will be more faithful to her man because he shows kindness and a willingness to share his time when she needs it the most. Does this action make the man more alpha or more beta? I have no idea and I don't really care either. Sometimes general labels aren't much help when understanding relationships.

I think the Beta extreme is to show too much kindness to women. I also think the alpha extreme is to show too little kindness to women.

The secret to any relationships is balance. Long term, woman greatly value kindness and a man who is willing to share. Too little or too much of that kills the relationship. Balance is what every man should seek if they want a long term relationship.

If all you want is short-term stuff, be 100% alpha, but it won't last. Same for being 100% beta. Both strategies are unsustainable long term.

 

[speed dawg]

Agree bmp2cpm. To me, it comes down to WHY you are performing the beta duties, that being chores in the aforementioned example. If you are doing it to gain 'brownie points', her IL is plummeting.

 

[guru1000]

1. http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=228292

2. http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=228949

Read both threads in their entirety, and then give me your input young brother.

And welcome to the board. If you are a scientist, your contributions will be greatly appreciated.

 

[IASGame]

First I want to clarify that I'm not advocating for Beta game in general. I currently think Beta game is overall less effective game. I was stating that I think it does occasionally work, which makes it harder for the plugged-in to realize what I currently perceive as the truth.

In Guru's experiments I think he applies a little bit of Beta game to a few girls where he identifies it as required. It is certainly interesting but not quite what I was thinking about (limits of terminology!), it's not like Guru is doing the dishes for any of them!

I'm new to this and I haven't really read much on Game, Rollo's stuff that I read already doesn't get too in the technical bit. I know little of psychology (I'm in one of the male-dominated hard sciences).

From what I know of Game it seems to me that Guru is genuinely experimenting as there are several instances that seems to go against the specific advice (being overt; giving a girl your number; spinning two plates at the same time in front of one another).
I suspect if one looks at the general picture you are still following general core values which are manifest in the specific advice given even though you are going at them by doing the opposite. You are always absolutely sticking to your frame, although you are very flexible on the details to adapt to each case.

BTW I loved the thrown water thing, funniest part overall. Can you plan for that and have water available to avoid it being something that would ruin the clothes like a cola or wine?

I like that you are logging the data and provide it for others to make what they will about it.
The 100% 2nd date when you are over in 1st date is interesting and you have decent number already 1000 is better than 100 but, but if you get 100% on 100 is unlikely to be less than, say 90% when you pile up 1000.
Would it be too annoying for you to keep a more accurate log (I say this as you were estimating the number of dates).


It may be residual blue pill mentality from my part but I honestly have some ethical qualms of outright running experiments on unsuspecting persons (regardless of gender). Basically I wouldn't like if women intentionally and consciously did this kind of stuff to me (but surely some did or would if given the opportunity) so I'm uneasy about endorsing it. But it is not like you are forcing anything on anyone so just because it makes my present mentality uncomfortable I'm not sure if I should conclude about it being ethical.

I think if I wasn't in an LTR I would be getting out there to some extent and experimenting myself out of scientific curiosity, but maybe I just think I would and I would need to grow my balls a bit for it and I think honesty is too big part of my identity for me to not maintain it. I also doubt I would push some of the boundaries (like two dates at the same time, that is extreme ahah - but the other one stuck around).

If I come up with any ideas for trying something I can suggest to you - at this stage the thing that most comes to mind is running game
1. while you are completely sober (and please relate what the girls say about it - I expect some will default to thinking you are weak if you don't drink, and I'd be interested on how you adapt that to your frame).
2. on completely sober girls, in fact discourage her from drinking if needed (probably you can still get her an expensive non-alcoholic drink, bars being bars, if you think that is a good move).

I think 2. in particular will make your "job" much harder but it seems like you enjoy a challenge. I think this will be interesting information.
[Disclaimer: I wrote this before I saw the post on the 13 of September about no drinks]

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Beware of scientific studies and any kind of philosophizing.

Human interaction is meant to be unconscious, automatic, natural.

As soon as you elevate it to conscious, rational thinking, it creates a HUGE danger that you'll hang out on the sidelines and pretend to be analyzing everything, when in reality you're just too afraid to get in the game and get some.

Humans have been banging each other long before language was invented. It's like playing sports. You don't need to study physics to know which angle to swing your bat, or throw the ball. You just got to do it enough times so it becomes second nature.

Let your feedback be your guide. The more feedback you get, the better you'll get. You don't even need to take notes.

 

[IASGame]

Tayuu:

I disagree with your sports analogy, in many Sports scientific analysis is a requirement to get to the top level. Usually what happens is the natural athlete gets the analysis from the trainer and that enables the athlete to take it to the next level.

What you say is prime advice for Men in general and for me in particular if my circumstances change and I have to consider whether I want to be the player or the trainer. Right now I am none as I don't know enough.
I am in an LTR and I intend to stay faithful, so I'm doing what my self-imposed rules allow and trying to learn.

I asked in another thread for advice on where to draw the line:
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=229267

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Beware of scientific studies and any kind of philosophizing.

Human interaction is meant to be unconscious, automatic, natural.

As soon as you elevate it to conscious, rational thinking, it creates a HUGE danger that you'll hang out on the sidelines and pretend to be analyzing everything, when in reality you're just too afraid to get in the game and get some.

Humans have been banging each other long before language was invented. It's like playing sports. You don't need to study physics to know which angle to swing your bat, or throw the ball. You just got to do it enough times so it becomes second nature.

Let your feedback be your guide. The more feedback you get, the better you'll get. You don't even need to take notes.

Your right. You have to trust you have the proper information and allow your reflexes and desire to take over.

Many of us do end up over analyzing it all, and up out of the game...

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Tayuu:

I disagree with your sports analogy, in many Sports scientific analysis is a requirement to get to the top level. Usually what happens is the natural athlete gets the analysis from the trainer and that enables the athlete to take it to the next level.

What you say is prime advice for Men in general and for me in particular if my circumstances change and I have to consider whether I want to be the player or the trainer. Right now I am none as I don't know enough.
I am in an LTR and I intend to stay faithful, so I'm doing what my self-imposed rules allow and trying to learn.

I asked in another thread for advice on where to draw the line:
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=229267

The player and trainer model is a good one. the trainer uses all of his time understanding these things and the athelete doesn't have to use his time on it, but can benefit from properly applied knowledge. He doesn't even need to know fully why it does work, just believe that it does.