If you're already high value there's no need to demonstrate it.

[9Volt]

Continued:

Of course, the entire concept of DHV is null - because you cannot overtly demonstrate high status or confidence. In fact, both qualities are characterized specifically by an absence of excessive display, and by a subdued reticence that specifically avoids ANY effort to impress or make others think highly of you.

Conversely, avoiding excessive display or efforts to impress others in an effort to appear "cool" - which is sometimes counseled in PUA circles - is apt to come off as the kind of try-hard being "aloof" and "stony-faced" that is just as absurd and obvious an indication of insecurity as show-offy behavior. I have heard women mock this kind of obvious try-hard attempts at masculinity.

Paradoxically, confident people are characterized by having "NO EGO". This seems like a paradox, but it isn't, really. In popular language the word "ego" is often used to denote the kind of behavior that is meant to impress ourselves on others and assert ourselves against them inappropriately. The frame of reference of such behavior is "what other people think of us", even if we are not always aware of this and sometimes such behavior appears to be not caring at all what others think. Being inappropriately assertive towards others, say, (trying to dominate them or not be appropriately considerate towards them), comes from a place of needing others to ACKNOWLEDGE your superirority (you need them to submit to you or acknowledge your superior right to mistreat them). The man genuinely free from needint others to acknowledge his superiority - the truly self-secure - does not need them to "submit" to him, and is not seeking to demonstrate his superiority through failing to be considerate, and so is typically not inappropriately assertive.

So having "no ego" in the sense that one is not seeking to impress oneself on others is actually to have a firm, secure, and mature ego - in other words having "no ego" in the popular sense is to have a balanced and well-developed ego, one where you are not afraid to claim what is due you but are free from childish dreams of megalomania and the need to be inappropriately assertive towards others. Such well-balanced, truly secure individuals are rare in modern Western culture, especially in America, where a kind of childish and inappropriate assertiveness is encouraged as an expression of "confidence".

 

[9Volt]

Continued:

So in sum, one should NOT try to be "show-offy - even in subtle ways - NOR should one try to be "aloof" or "indifferent" - one is an active attempt to show-off, and one is a passive attempt to show-off. They are two sides of the same coin. I do not want to give the silly impression that I believe confidence is expressed by being "aloof" or "indifferent". I want to make clear that such a silly notion is as bad as thinking that confidence is expressed by acting flamboyantly or with excessive self-assertion.

Rather, according to my belief that confidence is best expressed by having "no ego" in the popular conception of that word, I believe one should be polite, considerate, and "open" (not aloof) to others, while at the same time, refusing to fawn over anyone or allowing oneself to be mis-treated. Not trying in the least bit to appear "superior" - not by being "indifferent", and not by being excessively self-assertive - as you simply do not need others to "acknowledge" your supposed superiority. In fact, you care so little about them acknowleding your superiority that you are quite prepared to treat them politely as equals

When I go out in this frame of mind, I have my best social encounters, with both men and women. I tend to conncet with women very well in this state of mind and other guys are quite willing to socialize with me. Of course, a woman still has to be sexually attracted to me to go home with me, but I believe this state of mind is optimum and at least removes any social barriers.

The moment arrogance or "ego" creeps back into my mindset, I bomb socially, every time.

 

[BeExcellent]

If you aren't getting comments from women on the shoes you are wearing, then you aren't wearing the right ones! And yes shoes are super important to women.... most I know have at least 50pairs in their closet.

I'd bet that women notice shoes as much as we notice their boobs. ;-)

Lol. It's true. Shoes say volumes. Men who ignore the importance of footwear miss a tremendous opportunity to showcase taste.

Women with good taste judge men on footwear and upping this single component will create ridiculous results.

Take a guy in jeans and a solid gray t shirt.

Wears jogging shoes (he's a clod)

Wears Sambas (he's chill/he's cool)

Wears good brogues (he's refined and stylish)

Never underestimate what good shoes can do for you.

 

[BeExcellent]

Regarding high value men: Much wisdom on this thread.

They have an ease about them. A deep seated assuredness. They own attitudes a.) I'm the sh!t and b.) If you don't recognize I'm the sh!t that's a problem with the other person's perception not a problem with them.

They TRULY do not care what someone else's opinion is about them. This creates an internal core that radiates outward effortlessly as others have said.

Some called it entitlement. It absolutely is.

Women feel comfortable in the presence of this type of ease in a man. It comes across as strength, masculinity and allure no matter what the overlayed personality is. Reserved men have it; gregarious men have it; mercurial men have it. Whether or not a woman is sexually attracted is still unpredictable however these characteristics command respect whether she is sexually attracted or not. And this core will create attraction sexually where looks or trappings may not have otherwise been enough in many cases. That's why @guru1000 saw his ex marry a 5. The guy emanated this "it" factor, which is often a game changer.

 

[Urbanyst]

Regarding high value men: Much wisdom on this thread.

They have an ease about them. A deep seated assuredness. They own attitudes a.) I'm the sh!t and b.) If you don't recognize I'm the sh!t that's a problem with the other person's perception not a problem with them.

They TRULY do not care what someone else's opinion is about them. This creates an internal core that radiates outward effortlessly as others have said.

Some called it entitlement. It absolutely is.

Women feel comfortable in the presence of this type of ease in a man. It comes across as strength, masculinity and allure no matter what the overlayed personality is. Reserved men have it; gregarious men have it; mercurial men have it. Whether or not a woman is sexually attracted is still unpredictable however these characteristics command respect whether she is sexually attracted or not. And this core will create attraction sexually where looks or trappings may not have otherwise been enough in many cases. That's why @guru1000 saw his ex marry a 5. The guy emanated this "it" factor, which is often a game changer.

I agree with this.

Having high value and confidence puts you more in a disqualifying paradigm. Meaning, you judge people according to your standards, but you don't care about living up to their standards. This is huge. For instance, I've never had a LTR last longer than a year, yet I'm not bitter at all. Some of those women I dumped and some of them dumped me. But I have no bad blood towards any of them. I don't take rejected to mean there is something wrong with me. I just see it as not a good match.

Its amazing how easy everything becomes when you are comfortable in your own skin and not trying to impress anyone. I can do a cold approach in my sleep. If the woman shoots me down, I'm ok with it and it doesn't impact my confidence. I prefer rejection over missing a potential opportunity.

 

[fastlife]

My main issue with the logic of given her an infinite number of chances to reject you is that it rarely leads to a positive result.

Secondly there is an opportunity cost, however small, to chasing uninterested chicks...that strategy is suboptinal when you only have two or three date nights a week...better to focus attention on women with at least a moderate level of initial interest.

Thirdly, there is definitely a self respect issue at play here. Time is valuable. Why waste any attention on women who dont respect that fact...not "knowing me" just doesn't constitute a valid excuse anymore.

No argument with any of that here. Both approaches are suboptimal, in different ways; and it really comes down to your priorities & the abundance of good options in your environment vs. your standards for desired outcomes.

Hot & 18-21ish = Most desirable (for me), most rare, & most likely to flake. Tons of legwork to find them in the first place (in my environment), so it makes more sense for me to pursue those leads & tolerate more bullsh1t on the front end (since I might meet a solid 9 once every 2 months or so--and not all of those approaches will be anywhere close to optimal). 7's are one & done, if they don't play ball; 8's somewhere in between but I can meet 2 or so a month, so they get about a 2 week window & maybe the odd ping or two after that if chemistry was good.

So not exactly an infinite number of chances. But I live in a mid-tier city & can't afford not to optimize my leads. If I lived in NYC or SoCal, then opportunity cost would dictate that any time spent pursuing a less-than-compliant lead would be better spent generating new ones.

 

[9Volt]

DHV's attract gold-diggers and mercenaries while driving away honest, good women who might have initially been attracted to you, simply for who you are.

If you look for shortcuts in life you always end up with a worse result than if you had gone for the real deal.

How does a chick know you aren't a high value guy?
You have to talk about being a high value guy and attempt to "prove" it to her every chance you get without actually possessing high value.

 

[Urbanyst]

Lol. It's true. Shoes say volumes. Men who ignore the importance of footwear miss a tremendous opportunity to showcase taste.

Women with good taste judge men on footwear and upping this single component will create ridiculous results.

Take a guy in jeans and a solid gray t shirt.

Wears jogging shoes (he's a clod)

Wears Sambas (he's chill/he's cool)

Wears good brogues (he's refined and stylish)

Never underestimate what good shoes can do for you.

Shallow.

No women cares what shoes Leonardo DiCaprio is wearing because he is Leonardo DiCaprio. Put him next to a man with great shoes and the woman is still choosing Leonardo DiCaprio.

That's how I know what you are saying is garbage.

 

[Atom Smasher]

You seem to amplify and embellish people's points beyond what they are initially saying. You argue from extremes, which always diminishes one's credibility.

She is a woman. Virtually ALL women are shoe-obsessed. The point being made is not about movie stars compared to us. It is about us compared to most men (like yourself) who are clueless that women love shoes and will use them to judge the value and attractiveness of a man.

Just because you "feel" that isn't true doesn't make it so. Perhaps if we open our minds a little we might realize that there are sometimes points made here at SS that we haven't thought of before. Our own limited experience is often a poor barometer of what is true and what is not. That's the great value of SS. It can teach us if we let it.

You're hearing from both experienced men, and woman. Still, you seem to know better than everybody...

 

[Urbanyst]

You seem to amplify and embellish people's points beyond what they are initially saying. You argue from extremes, which always diminishes one's credibility.

She is a woman. Virtually ALL women are shoe-obsessed. The point being made is not about movie stars compared to us. It is about us compared to most men (like yourself) who are clueless that women love shoes and will use them to judge the value and attractiveness of a man.

Just because you "feel" that isn't true doesn't make it so. Perhaps if we open our minds a little we might realize that there are sometimes points made here at SS that we haven't thought of before. Our own limited experience is often a poor barometer of what is true and what is not. That's the great value of SS. It can teach us if we let it.

You're hearing from both experienced men, and woman. Still, you seem to know better than everybody...

Dude, why are you so sensitive about this shoe stuff? I guess what I'm saying is no one is going to jump on your penis because you are wearing certain shoes unless you have other attractive qualities.

Of course style and fashion is a factor in dating. But if you are a man of obvious value, the shoes don't matter.

You steam to be into peacocking game. Peacocking is when men focus on materialism because they lack real value.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Not sensitive at all. I'm actually pointing out that you habitually take points over the top with imagined extremes.

You're also unaware that you're unaware. I've noticed elsewhere that you've written about your dating history, and clearly a bit less preaching about your "certainties" and more learning from those who may have points that you've never considered before might do you a world of good in terms of longevity.

Your bizarre amplification ("No one is going to jump on your penis because you are wearing certain shoes") was never posited here. That is your imagination running away because you're not getting the initial point.

The initial point is that many women will disqualify a man based on sloppy footwear. Nothing more and nothing less. You seem to be the only man here who "knows" that this is not so.

Methinks it is you who is sensitive about the subject as you keep hammering home your point, which is contrary to the consensus of both men and women in this thread and in other threads on the subject. My contention with you is not about shoes, but rather about your insistence on wildly amplifying the meaning and intention behind others' statements. I cannot simplify it further for you.

Is it not reasonable to you that women notice footwear and that they judge a man by it? This is actually common knowledge among men with experience and among virtually all women.

 

[9Volt]

High Value men have no need to run around telling anyone how "high value" they are all the time. Others would recognize it without needing to be constantly reminded of it.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Right. High value is always displayed and inferred, never verbalized.

A man verbally declaring high value reminds me of the silliness of women running around saying, "I'm a powerful woman".

However, in a written discussion on the topic among men, a high value man may make the statement that he is, not to impress but rather to matter-of-factly state his experience and how he comports himself in his world, since the reader can't make that assessment with just words on a page.

In RL, declarations of high value are absurd and a clear tell of insecurity. We sometimes forget that women understand subtlety and hints far better than we do, so a little inference of value goes a long way.

 

[9Volt]

Right. High value is always displayed and inferred, never verbalized.

A man verbally declaring high value reminds me of the silliness of women running around saying, "I'm a powerful woman".

However, in a written discussion on the topic among men, a high value man may make the statement that he is, not to impress but rather to matter-of-factly state his experience and how he comports himself in his world, since the reader can't make that assessment with just words on a page.

In RL, declarations of high value are absurd and a clear tell of insecurity. We sometimes forget that women understand subtlety and hints far better than we do, so a little inference of value goes a long way.

That's what I'm saying.

As far as the shoes I agree. You obviously have to present yourself well. I don't really know many people though who go out wearing crap shoes. Usually if you're out everyone is trying to dress their best. Doesn't mean chicks are going to go crazy because of your shoes but to your point doesn't give men an excuse to dress like slobs while out and expect others to take them as a well dressed dude.

 

[9Volt]

I swear this "demonstrating high value" is like Flakebook attention and approval seeking but practiced out in real life. The people who are truly high value aren't sitting online trying to one up each other constantly because they're too busy doing high value things. The people who do that irl are seen as insecure marks desperate for others approval and acceptance trying to fill a void in their life.

 

[Urbanyst]

Not sensitive at all. I'm actually pointing out that you habitually take points over the top with imagined extremes.

You're also unaware that you're unaware. I've noticed elsewhere that you've written about your dating history, and clearly a bit less preaching about your "certainties" and more learning from those who may have points that you've never considered before might do you a world of good in terms of longevity.

Your bizarre amplification ("No one is going to jump on your penis because you are wearing certain shoes") was never posited here. That is your imagination running away because you're not getting the initial point.

The initial point is that many women will disqualify a man based on sloppy footwear. Nothing more and nothing less. You seem to be the only man here who "knows" that this is not so.

Methinks it is you who is sensitive about the subject as you keep hammering home your point, which is contrary to the consensus of both men and women in this thread and in other threads on the subject. My contention with you is not about shoes, but rather about your insistence on wildly amplifying the meaning and intention behind others' statements. I cannot simplify it further for you.

Is it not reasonable to you that women notice footwear and that they judge a man by it? This is actually common knowledge among men with experience and among virtually all women.

Women totally notice footwear. They also notice height, race, age and many other things that matter to them dramatically more than shoes.

I will agree that the lower your value is, the more your shoes and other superficial props matter.

Women care about what shoes represent, not the actual shoes themselves. Class, status and money. When your value is clear, women don't need indicators like shoes to judge you on. I've never paid much attention to my shoes and it has never been an issue for me.

 

[BeExcellent]

My basic point however also is that high value men will understand congruence.

As in, DiCaprio is DiCaprio...but DiCaprio would never wear tacky or cheap shoes. This would detract from his image amongst his peers (and his actual peers don't swoon about him being DiCaprio the way a average Jane or Joe would.)

Therefore high value men are termed "well heeled" a social term centuries old that recognizes this external measure of value. Well dressed successful men would not be caught dead in bad shoes as that would be incongruent with everything else.

So yes as a less established, shall we say, man, one can covey higher value by wearing a well known trapping of those who ARE high value. In a young man this reads to women as ambition and as a man who understands matters of taste.

In certain social circles good taste is important.

Never underestimate that at all times your appearance and minute details of your appearance silently broadcast who you are and what you're about to the world.

Shallow? Perhaps. But only a clod would handicap himself once having this knowledge.

And thusly a clod would be identified by his presentation (whether he is ignorant or not), and categorized accordingly.

Why handicap oneself in this way?

 

[Roober]

Right. High value is always displayed and inferred, never verbalized.

A man verbally declaring high value reminds me of the silliness of women running around saying, "I'm a powerful woman".

However, in a written discussion on the topic among men, a high value man may make the statement that he is, not to impress but rather to matter-of-factly state his experience and how he comports himself in his world, since the reader can't make that assessment with just words on a page.

In RL, declarations of high value are absurd and a clear tell of insecurity. We sometimes forget that women understand subtlety and hints far better than we do, so a little inference of value goes a long way.

This is basically it. Someone with high value will not need to demonstrate anything, it just happens and they are not even aware of it. If you have to demonstrate it, talk about it, or explain it, it likely comes from insecurity.

I can think of a couple examples...
-A wealthy man boasts about purchasing another Maclaren... A high value man doesn't need to flaunt his money
-A guy says he is nice and loyal, and blah blah blah... These qualities will naturally reveal themselves. I don't trust anyone who says "I am a nice guy" or "I am _____" (insert personality trait)... show me, don't tell me!
-Men who insult other men in an attempt to bring up their value... insecure men! a high value man knows he is above others, and they eventually figure it out

If one is attempting to "demonstrate" high value, they have already failed...

 

[9Volt]

Converse Chuck Taylor's have been hugely popular and many well to do people wear them as one example. But according to the high value proponents men should dress up in three piece suits, top of the line shoes, 50,000 watches to pick up chicks on POF to convey "high value" or go everywhere dressed to the nines at all times as if somehow no one else will be dressed the same way going to an event, work, etc.

You wear nice shoes to events, work, weddings, social events, parties that require a dress code like that, clubs with the same requirements. There is such a thing as being over dressed. You don't show up to a BBQ or beach outing wearing a tux and gators.

 

[Urbanyst]

My basic point however also is that high value men will understand congruence.

As in, DiCaprio is DiCaprio...but DiCaprio would never wear tacky or cheap shoes. This would detract from his image amongst his peers (and his actual peers don't swoon about him being DiCaprio the way a average Jane or Joe would.)

Therefore high value men are termed "well heeled" a social term centuries old that recognizes this external measure of value. Well dressed successful men would not be caught dead in bad shoes as that would be incongruent with everything else.

So yes as a less established, shall we say, man, one can covey higher value by wearing a well known trapping of those who ARE high value. In a young man this reads to women as ambition and as a man who understands matters of taste.

In certain social circles good taste is important.

Never underestimate that at all times your appearance and minute details of your appearance silently broadcast who you are and what you're about to the world.

Shallow? Perhaps. But only a clod would handicap himself once having this knowledge.

And thusly a clod would be identified by his presentation (whether he is ignorant or not), and categorized accordingly.

Why handicap oneself in this way?

I agree with you. My point is there are so many other factors that matter more than shoes. A guy who focuses on shoes over more important factors is kidding himself.

For instance, I would focus more on having a nice place to live and disposable income over having the "it" shoes in style at the moment.

Promoting shoes is like promoting a certain haircut as being essential to getting women. It's putting the cart before the horse.