Here's why "DHV" and "Negs" lower your value, not raise it.

[ChocolateVanilla]

I'm just pointing out the flaw in your statement.

As I explain there is no flaw.


You want evidence but yet don't show evidence of your own.

"If a person goes out a lot and tries many different approaches on many girls and sees a trend of what works and what doesn't, that's the evidence and facts. and "There's literally thousands of FR out there you can read, and almost all of them that I've seen show the person running indirect game".
There's your evidence. What more do you expect than that?

I'm sure that guy can point out numerous field reports where his approach did work.
You're sure? I'm not sure. What makes you so sure? I'm not even asking him for his FR. I'm asking him or anyone else to point out these numerous FR showing Direct worked.

Asking for evidence without providing evidence of your own as if your evidence magically existed and everyone else's didn't doesn't prove anything to me.

Again, this is repetition, the indirect FR are all out there for anyone to read.

You can keep saying "I got evidence, you don't", but it's not convincing.

It's not convincing if you stuff cotton in your ears and cover your eyes maybe.

You can point to numerous field reports

Yes I can, there are some on here, A boatload of them on ASF and on various other seduction forums.

and he'll probably point to numerous field reports,

He or anyone else will? What makes you so sure? Well I'd like see the numerous FR of direct leading to hook ups

that doesn't mean anything.

I think FR and many other people's experience in pick up mean something. What more do you want, video tape of everyone's PU including in the bedroom so you can verify they actually hooked up? You probably would still say it doesn't mean "anything".

I'm not even an advocate of direct, but again, there are several direct forums and websites and several people (including the over zealous Derek here) who use direct and it obviously works for them. Saying you have evidence and then pointing to arbitrary field reports is not evidence. Sorry it's not convincing, and I didn't stuff my ears with cotton. That's like watching John Kerry in a presidential debate keep saying "I got a plan" without saying it. Evidence = facts, unless you can prove to me that indirect is better than direct with facts (not field reports, which are not facts), then it's not a convincing argument. You're citing anectodal evidence which is weak at best.


The point I was trying to make, is that there is no real evidence you can use to prove anything when it comes to seduction. A handful of field reports (aka. anectodal evidence) are now facts that can support your argument? Seducing women isn't something you can use facts and evidence to prove. Everyone has their own different approach and citing a couple of field reports on some forum of someone using indirect doesn't prove indirect is better than direct, or taking field reports of direct and saying direct is better than indirect isn't proof either.

 

[Derek Flint]

I disagree. If you are good at this you don't appear like you have lower value.

Yes you should always improve yourself, but saying you shouldn't DHV is like saying you shouldn't use any tools because it makes you less of a man. That is crap. Tools make life easier and they don't make you worthless.

One can improve their life continually yet still use PUA tools. I would actually say learning PUA skills does improve your life.

Well, we can agree to disagree - I think it is far more "high-value" to let the girl discover your value on her own without the guy having to demonstrate it.

I'll go back to the Corvette Convertible analogy I used earlier for those who missed it:

Back when the 5th generation Corvette's first came out in 1997, a year later, they added a Convertible to the lineup and I bought a slightly used one in 1999, it was a Nassau Blue 98 Corvette Convertible with Black Leather interior. Pure sex on wheels and a kick ass color combo to boot.

I met a girl one night at an upscale lounge and we talked for quite a bit. Got her number. Called her later that week and spent 4 hours on the phone with her talking about anything and everything and we really hit it off. We agreed to go out on a date.

The night of the date, I roll up in my Vette, top down and the car nice and polished and detailed and looking sweet. First thing she says is why didn't I tell her I had such a sweet ride and I told her some BS about how I didn't think she was the type of girl who was into cars and such.

Nonetheless, she totally dug my car. Really loved it.

Now, what had more of an impact?

Not telling her about the car and just showing up in it, or telling her about it before our date then showing up in it?

Letting her find out about the car by seeing it and not me telling her about it before hand obviously.

Instead of mentioning the car casually in conversation, I purposely didn't, knowing that it would be more "impressive" and "higher-value" to just show up with it without talking about it first.

Had I mentioned it beforehand, she would have still thought it to be cool, but also might in the back of her mind think I'm trying to impress her with material possessions by talking about them.

This is what I mean about how high-value guys don't need to demonstrate high-value, because they already are high-value and don't need to "broadcast" the fact that they are.

Just like all the idiot rice-boys in their imports who always wanted to race me, then call me chicken or claim that their car was probably faster because I wouldn't race them.

No, I wouldn't race them because I already knew what the outcome would be and didn't need to prove anything, or "display" the fact that my car was "higher-value"

I don't know how many other analogies I can post to get the point across - true high value guys do not need to display their value with stories or gimmicks or any of the other BS that many of these guru's teach, nor do they need to tear others down to bring them down a "notch or two"

When you truly have value, high value, you don't need to "demonstrate" it.

High value speaks volumes without saying a word.

 

[zerocelcius]

what the **** is semantics somebody get a geek to look that up. lets just say everybody has their own style

:crackup: are you joking?...

 

[zerocelcius]

Semantics ~ the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”


What ever happened to trying to better our selves? Try getting a Dictionary, Thesaurus, and a "Word-A-Day" Calendar.

How are you going to ever become a Don Juan with poor communication skills.....


I hope to Thor you were joking...:crazy:

 

[Derek Flint]

One more example: Today, I trained 3 new employees at my job.

One guy had a resumé that was very impressive - the guy was obviously smart and knew a lot of technical stuff inside and out. The other 2 guys had slightly above average technical skills.

I sat down in the room with these 3 guys and before even really talking to any of them, I knew almost instantly which guy was the guy with the impressive resumé, just by his handshake, and the way he carried himself, before he even spoke a word.

How did I know? Because he had true high-value, or at least higher-value than the 2 other guys. It just showed. He didn't have to "DHV"

Women have an even more sensitive sense for this kind of thing than Men do, so if I could sense it, Women especially will be able to sense it as well.

Had this guy done anything to "DHV" it would have come across as insecure, validation-seeking behavior and would have lowered his value, at least perception wise in my eyes.

His technical skills would not have changed, but had he attempted to "DHV" his value would have been lowered for the reasons stated above.

I don't know how many other ways there are to say the same thing. Guys will either "get it" or they won't.

The guys that will try to "DHV" and to "Neg" and in the end, they will just end up hurting their own chances with women because they got too slick for their own good so to speak.

Don't demonstrate high-value. Be high-value. Trust me, everyone will know it when you are, without a word having to be spoken.

 

[ketostix]

I'm just pointing out the flaw in your statement.

As I explain there is no flaw.


You want evidence but yet don't show evidence of your own.

"If a person goes out a lot and tries many different approaches on many girls and sees a trend of what works and what doesn't, that's the evidence and facts. and "There's literally thousands of FR out there you can read, and almost all of them that I've seen show the person running indirect game".
There's your evidence. What more do you expect than that?

I'm sure that guy can point out numerous field reports where his approach did work.
You're sure? I'm not sure. What makes you so sure? I'm not even asking him for his FR. I'm asking him or anyone else to point out these numerous FR showing Direct worked.

Asking for evidence without providing evidence of your own as if your evidence magically existed and everyone else's didn't doesn't prove anything to me.

Again, this is repetition, the indirect FR are all out there for anyone to read.

You can keep saying "I got evidence, you don't", but it's not convincing.

It's not convincing if you stuff cotton in your ears and cover your eyes maybe.

You can point to numerous field reports

Yes I can, there are some on here, A boatload of them on ASF and on various other seduction forums.

and he'll probably point to numerous field reports,

He or anyone else will? What makes you so sure? Well I'd like see the numerous FR of direct leading to hook ups

that doesn't mean anything.

I'm not even an advocate of direct, but again, there are several direct forums and websites and several people (including the over zealous Derek here) who use direct and it obviously works for them. Saying you have evidence and then pointing to arbitrary field reports is not evidence. Sorry it's not convincing, and I didn't stuff my ears with cotton. That's like watching John Kerry in a presidential debate keep saying "I got a plan" without saying it. Evidence = facts, unless you can prove to me that indirect is better than direct with facts (not field reports, which are not facts), then it's not a convincing argument. You're citing anectodal evidence which is weak at best.


The point I was trying to make, is that there is no real evidence you can use to prove anything when it comes to seduction. A handful of field reports (aka. anectodal evidence) are now facts that can support your argument? Seducing women isn't something you can use facts and evidence to prove. Everyone has their own different approach and citing a couple of field reports on some forum of someone using indirect doesn't prove indirect is better than direct, or taking field reports of direct and saying direct is better than indirect isn't proof either.

Well there's nothing wrong with "anecdotal evidence" when it's the best thing you have and you know how to weigh evidence's validity. The point is if direct worked statistical as well as indirect, direct people would have successful FR and LR. Where are they? It's not a handful of indirect FR it's many. Plenty of guys have tried various approaches and found women responded to better to certain things as oppossed to others. Using your logic, no one can see trends or learn anything from anyone else or learn from anything. Your logic would negate the usefulness of all forums,people's field experience and discussing PU in general.

 

[zerocelcius]

One more example: Today, I trained 3 new employees at my job.

One guy had a resumé that was very impressive - the guy was obviously smart and knew a lot of technical stuff inside and out. The other 2 guys had slightly above average technical skills.

I sat down in the room with these 3 guys and before even really talking to any of them, I knew almost instantly which guy was the guy with the impressive resumé, just by his handshake, and the way he carried himself, before he even spoke a word.

How did I know? Because he had true high-value, or at least higher-value than the 2 other guys. It just showed. He didn't have to "DHV"

Women have an even more sensitive sense for this kind of thing than Men do, so if I could sense it, Women especially will be able to sense it as well.

Had this guy done anything to "DHV" it would have come across as insecure, validation-seeking behavior and would have lowered his value, at least perception wise in my eyes.

His technical skills would not have changed, but had he attempted to "DHV" his value would have been lowered for the reasons stated above.

I don't know how many other ways there are to say the same thing. Guys will either "get it" or they won't.

The guys that will try to "DHV" and to "Neg" and in the end, they will just end up hurting their own chances with women because they got too slick for their own good so to speak.

Don't demonstrate high-value. Be high-value. Trust me, everyone will know it when you are, without a word having to be spoken.

This makes total sense and I get what you’re saying. I also agree with where you are coming from. But in this example the guy you are talking about did DHV.

1. Handshake
2. Presence
3. Not-acting Needy
4. Not seeking Approval
5. Resume

On a side note you obviously weren’t trying to flirt with this guy (visa/versa).

So I understand what your saying and I agree. You shouldn't act like you have high value. When you have high value it will secrete from your pores. Very True!

However; When Flirting or PU there are many non-actions you do that are a passive aggressive form of DHV. And you mentioned this above.

1. Don't act needy
2. Don't seek approval
3. Don't Bragg/Be arrogant

Those all are forms of DHV. Women hate needy/clingy guys as we all know. So in being a Non-Needy guy you are in fact D.isplaying H.igh V.alue.

NOW ON TO NEGs

NEGs are fun!

Remember how you’re supposed to treat a girl like your little sister?

That is the home of NEGs. Teasing=Light hearted Kino+Negs. It is what breaks down that awkward barrier and allows flirting to escalate into teasing and slapping, tickling, funny faces. That is how you flirt. Girls love it when you are playful!

Use NEGs but don't use them to lower her value or build up your own. Use them to break down barriers and lighten up the Convo.

A true DON can find a Million of cute little things girls do that you can mention. I prefer to weave NEGs into CnF, and it works out great!


If I have 2 cents left... yep I do... Let me put it like this.

Don't put limitations on yourself! Take it all in like a sponge and don't be so judgmental. Lighten up! Play around with different stuff and re-work it around to suit your personality.

Smile, Flirt, Tease, Kino, Kiss, FClose, and let her know she is respected and appreciated. If it don't work out next her and move on to 1 more out of 2.5 billion.

:moon:

 

[xdreamz]

ok now geek #2, relate the meaning of semantics to this topic of discussion

i want everyone to realize that the game is to be sold not told

it is not the assumption but the faith we have in ourselves which carry it on

 

[xdreamz]

:crackup: are you joking?...

if i was saying something funny it would be in a humorous tone, and if you would like to keep up with the conversation youd better have more social skills

 

[ChocolateVanilla]

Well there's nothing wrong with "anecdotal evidence" when it's the best thing you have and you know how to weigh evidence's validity. The point is if direct worked statistical as well as indirect, direct people would have successful FR and LR. Where are they? It's not a handful of indirect FR it's many. Plenty of guys have tried various approaches and found women responded to better to certain things as oppossed to others. Using your logic, no one can see trends or learn anything from anyone else or learn from anything. Your logic would negate the usefulness of all forums,people's field experience and discussing PU in general.

My point is, there is no evidence to prove anything when it come to picking up women. It's not fact-based, it's not a science like physics, math, etc..... where you can come up with facts and concrete conclusions. Like I said, I personally doubt direct would work well unless you're at least average/good looking and wouldn't work on HB 9+ either IMO, but I haven't had the most experience dealing with it, it just irks me when people try to ask for evidence without providing any concrete evidence of their own (my point being, this isn't fact based, you can't prove much of anything factually).

Also, I believe you are saying indirect is better than direct because more people use it? Just because more people think indirect is better or more people use it doesn't make it better than direct in any way. That's a fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Millions of people bought Ashlee simpson CD's and hardly anyone buys non-mainstream CD's, does that mean Ashlee Simpson is better than everyone less popular than her? It doesn't. It couldn't have to do with marketing now could it? I mean, especially with Mystery's VH1 show, there's been a pretty noticeable boom in his method. Also, indirect is easier (IMO) cuz it allows newer people to use canned openers at least rather than coming up with something to say on their own. There could be a variety of other factors associated with it. And I know for a fact that some people think direct work (i.e. Derek) and he's been pretty convincing about it, but that's just him, everyone has their own approach/method and as long as it works for them, that's fine with me. But by reading Derek's posts, I have a feeling this guy just might be flat-out good looking.


Also, I think a lot of people synonymously put Indirect with Mystery, but I'm pretty sure indirect might cover a broader range than just Mystery. I'm definitely not a big fan of mystery and his method.

 

[ketostix]

Chocolate Vannila, I feel what you're saying more now but keep in mind Direct is easier, basically you tell the girl she's attractive and that you're interested in her and you throw all indirect tactics out the window and you rely on saying however you feel at the time and your looks. If that worked better than indirect game plan then there'd be evidence in FR and LR and no one would've bother withed studying PU and developing Indirect. I hate to use your own arguments against Derek but his examples were totally and truely anecdotal and limited but I'm too inebriated to respond to his post now lol.

 

[xdreamz]

yes you should have some sort of direct tactic, notice the word direct-tion...
hows that for semantics? but it lacks the formal courtship that some woman are accustomed to