"That guy right there thinks you are hot"

[Strip Club Inspector]

God of Getting Laid is clearly not a God of Logic. Something that is true most of the time, is not false or bullsh*t when a single situation does not conform to the general rule. That is the nature of statistical knowledge. It's like if you were playing poker, had aces, and called an all in when you knew the guy had queens. If he hit a set, you didn't make the wrong move; instead, the statistically rare (7:1) chance of the other guy making a set and you not catching one over his came to pass. It doesn't mean you shouldn't call every single time in that situation when you have him statistically dominated.

God of Getting Laid wants to disprove the DJ Bible likely because he has lacked success with it and wants to harp on this single situation where an alleged anomaly took place. Well, guess what, it's just a set of general principles. Not all of the subtleties can make it into the Bible. If you have a crummy personality and don't improve it, using a few stock "rules" like CF etc. won't change the fact that you're unpleasant and unattractive.

But guys who have gotten a lot of women or who have done so intermittently realize that the basic concepts are true more often than not. Namely: Be Confident, Be Interesting, Don't Worry Too Much, Don't Try to Bribe a Girl Into Liking You, Don't Be a Sniveling Low Value Guy Who Demands What He Can't Attract, Show Interest Without Being a Sycophant, etc. etc. In other words, be a man. Pursue what you want and, more important, accept the consequences either way with some grace and dignity.

We're talking about a friggin' HS cafeteria here. HS chicks barely know what they want. They're just starting to realize their feelings don't line up with the feminist propaganda they've gotten from after school specials and their demented often resentful teachers. More important, the guy's friend here looked manly in comparison: calmly eating his lunch while his friend's undoubtedly sarcastic vibe and evil intentions made him look calmer, more dignified, and more in control of himself by comparison. Plus, and no one has ever disputed this, even AFCs get the girl when the girl already likes them. That's why they get it so rarely and unpredictably and often screw it up (or hurry up and get married) as soon as they do. DJing is about having more choices for yourself and seizing the day.

God of Getting Laid, just because you get some every so often when a random girl decides, in spite of your apparent lack of intelligence, that you're attractive doesn't prove that you are the God of anything, other than innumeracy.

 

[Latinoman]

Well, he is a guy I know, not a real friend friend. I kind of WANTED to kill his game.

I do this sometimes, make other guys look pathetic. One day I may get my ass kicked for that.

But I don't feel bad about it... I mean if I want it, why should HE get it?

That's a waste of energy and clearly pathetic. Why worry about others game and NOT focus just on yours?

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

I'm pretty sure a guy who misspells "laid" in his handle should refrain from excessive IQ references.

LOL, IQ is less correlated with your ability to spell, and more correlated with mathematical reasoning skills. Im sure you probably lack in this area. And If you want to try me and say otherwise, Id be glad to call you on that. I called another guy in this forum on this who was BSing (you know who you are )

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

God of Getting Laid is clearly not a God of Logic. Something that is true most of the time, is not false or bullsh*t when a single situation does not conform to the general rule. That is the nature of statistical knowledge. It's like if you were playing poker, had aces, and called an all in when you knew the guy had queens. If he hit a set, you didn't make the wrong move; instead, the statistically rare (7:1) chance of the other guy making a set and you not catching one over his came to pass. It doesn't mean you shouldn't call every single time in that situation when you have him statistically dominated.

um, when the general rule is "all women cant stand wussy men, if you even slightly act wussy women will get turned off big time" yes, one single counter example is enough to prove that wrong. THat is definitely what the DJ bible is implying. If I say my coin always lands on heads, and I find it land on tails once, Ive just been proven wrong. I have to revise my theory to "its sometimes lands on tails, but mostly heads". THe theory about it "always heads" has been killed by just one example! :yes:

accordingly, the DJ bible needs to be revised. Really, it just needs to be scrapped, and some thing better in its place. it's too fvcked up to be revised.

As for your poker example, the only reason why it would be good to make that move despite the possibility of your opponent making the set, is becuase by comparison to the other possible moves in that situation, it has the highest value. Other moves in that situation have a lower average return, and pretty much all moves have the possiblities of favorable and unfavorable outcomes. This really has nothing to do with one example disproving something. Making good decisions when there are possiblities of unfavorable outcomes is something totally different than deciding weither or not a hypothesis should still hold if you have one example that doesnt favor it. 2 different things man. One is about good decision making to maxmize your success, another is about correctly infering truth from evidence. Your definitley not the one to be telling me Im not the "god of logic". someone else maybe, but definitely not you.

God of Getting Laid wants to disprove the DJ Bible likely because he has lacked success with it and wants to harp on this single situation where an alleged anomaly took place. Well, guess what, it's just a set of general principles. Not all of the subtleties can make it into the Bible. If you have a crummy personality and don't improve it, using a few stock "rules" like CF etc. won't change the fact that you're unpleasant and unattractive.

No, I dont like the DJ bible, because its horrible innacuracy is disgusting to me. Im disgusted how people praise such bullsh1t. Im trying to show you guys that the world is round becuase alot of you guys think it is flat when it is not.

And by the way, the "general rules" are off too. Dont try to explain away its innacuracy with "oh, its a general guide line, its not exact". Even if we go with that excuse, it still doesnt hold up.

But guys who have gotten a lot of women or who have done so intermittently realize that the basic concepts are true more often than not.

Thats like saying one guy who didnt catch the cold, when the rest of his family did was right when he said "I didnt catch it becuase I drank orange juice everyday". How does he know that was the cause? how does he know it was that versus washing your hands, or just having a strong immune system. How could he know what to attribute his "not catching the cold"?

Same thing with dating. Its difficult to know what to attribute your success to. You can analyse things and figure it out, but like I said in one of my posts before, most people on this site dont have this ability.

in spite of your apparent lack of intelligence,

oh I get it, Im not intellgient becuase Im pointing out an evident hole in the DJ bible theory? that makes alot of sense.

 

[Serialized3]

Nobody wins (or gets laid) arguing over don juan "theory".

 

[CCKazi007]

Saying a girl's hot to her face works because it's a compliment and shows your not afraid to admit sexual desires and makes everything clear. If you wanted to AMOG your friend you should have said "HE REALLY LIKES YOU and wants to take you out"

 

[Fortunate_Juan]

um, when the general rule is "all women cant stand wussy men, if you even slightly act wussy women will get turned off big time" yes, one single counter example is enough to prove that wrong. THat is definitely what the DJ bible is implying. If I say my coin always lands on heads, and I find it land on tails once, Ive just been proven wrong. I have to revise my theory to "its sometimes lands on tails, but mostly heads". THe theory about it "always heads" has been killed by just one example! :yes:

Yes it would be true, if the bible claimed to be fact. And if you interpreted it as intended to be fact. But there have been no claims that it's a tried and true fact, your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples and oranges.

accordingly, the DJ bible needs to be revised. Really, it just needs to be scrapped, and some thing better in its place. it's too fvcked up to be revised.

Really... see if most guys didn't find it helpful, including the ones who host the bible, you don't think they would remove it?

As for your poker example, the only reason why it would be good to make that move despite the possibility of your opponent making the set, is becuase by comparison to the other possible moves in that situation, it has the highest value. Other moves in that situation have a lower average return, and pretty much all moves have the possiblities of favorable and unfavorable outcomes. This really has nothing to do with one example disproving something. Making good decisions when there are possiblities of unfavorable outcomes is something totally different than deciding weither or not a hypothesis should still hold if you have one example that doesnt favor it. 2 different things man. One is about good decision making to maxmize your success, another is about correctly infering truth from evidence. Your definitley not the one to be telling me Im not the "god of logic". someone else maybe, but definitely not you.

Well when you are claiming the Dj bible to be worthless and needing to be scrapped, well guess what it's helped me get laid. So you cannot say it is worthless, or I guess you could, but you would be wrong. The argument that you have regarding good and bad out comes is right, but the problem is you are misdirecting the argument. You are saying a+b always = c (c being "omg da DJ bible is teh LOSE). But the problem is there are so many other variables in the equation, it isn't an a+b=c issue its an a+b+c+d+etc=? issue.

No, I dont like the DJ bible, because its horrible innacuracy is disgusting to me. Im disgusted how people praise such bullsh1t. Im trying to show you guys that the world is round becuase alot of you guys think it is flat when it is not.

Actually I think you are more like chicken little running around screaming the SKY IS FALLING. It sounds more like, to me anyways, that you are trying to show us the world is square.

And by the way, the "general rules" are off too. Dont try to explain away its innacuracy with "oh, its a general guide line, its not exact". Even if we go with that excuse, it still doesnt hold up.

This statement is already proven to be inaccurate. I am sure the bible has helped at least one person other than myself. But I've found my best advances come when I internalize the information found here, by internalizing you are adapting it to your personality. By internalizing it you are also generalizing the rules (if you can call them that, since I think it's more of a philosophy). Please elaborate on how the "general rules" argument doesn't hold water.

Thats like saying one guy who didnt catch the cold, when the rest of his family did was right when he said "I didnt catch it becuase I drank orange juice everyday". How does he know that was the cause?

Or sort of like one guy saying the Dj bible isn't helpful at all, but there is no way he could know how helpful it is for other people. The issue is, I say it is useful, I have had success with it, you say it isn't useful, is this because you haven't had success with it? Either way it doesn't matter. Because it never says in there that this is a cure all book.

how does he know it was that versus washing your hands, or just having a strong immune system. How could he know what to attribute his "not catching the cold"?

If you haven't been applying the principles of the DJ bible because you think it "sucks" then how would you know if it isn't effective or at least a helfpul tool in reframing your game plan? And if you have "applied" the bible to your game, and it didn't help, tough break. But that doesnt mean because you failed at it, that it's a worthless item.

Same thing with dating. Its difficult to know what to attribute your success to. You can analyse things and figure it out, but like I said in one of my posts before, most people on this site dont have this ability.

Hey chicken little, get off your high horse.

oh I get it, Im not intellgient becuase Im pointing out an evident hole in the DJ bible theory? that makes alot of sense.

I realize what you said about "math being a factor in IQ" but maybe you should proof read your posts. Otherwise people may get the impression you aren't "intellgient".

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Yes it would be true, if the bible claimed to be fact. And if you interpreted it as intended to be fact. But there have been no claims that it's a tried and true fact, your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples and oranges.

listen to that: "IF the DJ bible claimed to be fact". Oh so youre admiting its not fact huh? Good to see you coming around to my arguement and admiting its not fact , ie false, lies, busllsh1t, crap. If youre admiting the DJ bible isnt fact, then no, my argument isnt flawed, your actually confirming my argument as correct by pointing this out. duuuuhhhhhhhh:yes:

accordingly, the DJ bible needs to be revised. Really, it just needs to be scrapped, and some thing better in its place. it's too fvcked up to be revised.

Really... see if most guys didn't find it helpful, including the ones who host the bible, you don't think they would remove it?

um, the DJ bible is way off. If they removed it, sosuave would have nothing to put in its place. Sosuave isnt capable of developing any "true DJ bible" to put in its place. No offense ot anyone, but this isnt exactly a forum full of smart people. the scientific method is over everyones head here.

Well when you are claiming the Dj bible to be worthless and needing to be scrapped, well guess what it's helped me get laid. So you cannot say it is worthless, or I guess you could, but you would be wrong.

oh so you find it helpful huh? WELCOME TO PLACEBOVILLE.

Many AFCs read the DJ bible and apply its teachings, and STILL CANT GET LAID! let me say this again:
Many AFCs read the DJ bible and apply its teachings, and STILL CANT GET LAID!

The argument that you have regarding good and bad out comes is right, but the problem is you are misdirecting the argument. You are saying a+b always = c (c being "omg da DJ bible is teh LOSE). But the problem is there are so many other variables in the equation, it isn't an a+b=c issue its an a+b+c+d+etc=? issue.

um no. That is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that the poker example is an example of making the best decision to increase your success, where as this argument about the DJ bible is about infering the real truth about something. infering truth, and making good decisions to gain success are 2 totally different tasks. And as far as this argument goes, the DJ bible basically implies its pretty much always correct, so when we see a couple of counter examples, that is in fact enough to kill the theory the DJ bible is founded on. If just so happens the very theory it is founded on doesnt work well in a world where even just a few counter examples exist. Try a better theory in its place. ie one that says its possible to be a pvssy, and still get women.

And by the way, the "general rules" are off too. Dont try to explain away its innacuracy with "oh, its a general guide line, its not exact". Even if we go with that excuse, it still doesnt hold up.

This statement is already proven to be inaccurate. I am sure the bible has helped at least one person other than myself.

ever heard of the placebo effect? educate yourself son:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect

Thats like saying one guy who didnt catch the cold, when the rest of his family did was right when he said "I didnt catch it becuase I drank orange juice everyday". How does he know that was the cause?

Or sort of like one guy saying the Dj bible isn't helpful at all, but there is no way he could know how helpful it is for other people. The issue is, I say it is useful, I have had success with it, you say it isn't useful, is this because you haven't had success with it? Either way it doesn't matter. Because it never says in there that this is a cure all book.

um, actually I do have information that can tell me if the DJ bible is correct: the DJ bible says pretty much all women are turned of by fearful men. Then comes along Babnik's example, which proves it as false. Babnik's example is the information that would tell me if its theory really is correct or not. However, when it comes to the catching the cold, knowing if you washed your hands today, or drank some juice really doesnt provide you with any information about why you didnt get the cold. My point stands, and your attempt to use it against me has failed.

If you haven't been applying the principles of the DJ bible because you think it "sucks" then how would you know if it isn't effective or at least a helfpul tool in reframing your game plan? And if you have "applied" the bible to your game, and it didn't help, tough break. But that doesnt mean because you failed at it, that it's a worthless item.

I dont base the innacuracy of the DJ bible on how I do with women and weither or not Im applying DJ bible concepts (Im doing well with women by the way). Im basing my arguement on logic. I understand what the DJ bible claims to be true, I look at valid and relevant real world observations, and its not holding up. This is called the scientific method, obviously you dont know about it, becuase you are clearly trying to avoid admiting that Babnik's example is valid, and proves the DJ bible's claims as wrong. Part of the scientific method is using all relevent and available observations. Babnik's example is relevent and valid, but your trying to act like his example is nothing, and should be ignored when considering the validity of the DJ bible. this clearly goes with against the scientific method.

 

[Strip Club Inspector]

God of Getting Layed [sic] you are confused on so many levels. Oh, the scientific method. Yeah I never heard of it . . . even though I took and got 4s and 5s in AP Physics, Chemistry and Biology in High School, went to the University of Chicago (where I graduated with special honors) and studied Karl Popper, among others. What an insecure loser you must be to think you're the most educated person here.

Your problem is you think part of knowledge, the rational and formulaic part, is the whole of knowledge. It's not, and this is particularly true in human interactions. Generals, chefs, sales people, businessmen, etc. all often work under uncertainty and with anecdotal data. But they're not all equals in their crafts. Successful ones don't ignore street knowledge, intuition, their own experiences, and received traditional wisdom because it's not been confirmed in a double blind study or using regression analysis. Much of what they "know" can't be put in a book; and reading a book on what any of them knows will not make you a great chef, general, and sales person. The gazillions of micro-adjustments needed in complex activities come from experience, natural talent, and other factors and can't be easily taught and put into a formula appropriate for an egghead Asperger's Syndrome victim like yourself. Knowledge has two halves. The second half is experiential, and it's especially important in the art of seduction.

There is not easy way to get the kind of data you seek. We must stumble about with anecdotes, personal experience, common sense, deep observation, and some basic ideas about female psychology that have been known by everyone from Homer to Shakespeare since time immemorial.

Your supposed concern for rigor is just a mask for your desire not to improve yourself, your desire to drag down others with you, and your desire to show off your not particularly impressive exposure to basic math and science. Go study some philosophy--the most g-loaded of the humanities--and learn what you don't know and take for granted.

Guys, don't listen to this guy. He's a fraud. He doesn't want to improve himself, he wants to chain himself down with the pedantic formulas that make him feel superior, and he wants to undermine this good work of collective wisdom because something that would be unbelievably expensive and incredibly hard to construct is not available. He wants the best to be the enemy of the good. I simply don't believe him when he gets lots of women; his personality is too unbalanced and devoid of emotional intelligence, as you can see above.

He's like the guy watching Donald Trump make billions saying, "Well, you can't say this property will appreciate. You don't really know it. There is no regression analysis or study that says so rigorously with the scientific method." Meanwhile the Trumps will get rich and get laid. And they'll spell it correctly to boot.

 

[Fortunate_Juan]

listen to that: "IF the DJ bible claimed to be fact". Oh so youre admiting its not fact huh? Good to see you coming around to my arguement and admiting its not fact , ie false, lies, busllsh1t, crap. If youre admiting the DJ bible isnt fact, then no, my argument isnt flawed, your actually confirming my argument as correct by pointing this out. duuuuhhhhhhhh:yes:

Objection, cumulavite information. Objection, misleading.
I never said I thought the bible was fact. NO ONE DID. Yes your argument is flawed, you cannot successfully argue this point, or the other side. You are saying it's always wrong, which you cannot prove or disprove. Making your argument flawed.

um, the DJ bible is way off. If they removed it, sosuave would have nothing to put in its place. Sosuave isnt capable of developing any "true DJ bible" to put in its place. No offense ot anyone, but this isnt exactly a forum full of smart people. the scientific method is over everyones head here.

Objection, personal opinion.
Your personal opinion is NOT A FACT. It cannot be proven or disproven. I would ask you to give me factual proof, but you cannot. All you can do is give me your limited scope of a view. Due to the fact that you are arguing an opinion, you cannot begin to use the scientific method. The first step, yes, being an observance. The second step, description, (something that is repeatable) not possible. We are talking about millions of nuances that cannot be repeated. The prediction (step 3) cannot be inferred, nor can a control be created(step 4). There are other steps but, why bother. Two humans interacting is not boiled down to scientific facts. It sounds like the scientific method is over your head as well.

oh so you find it helpful huh? WELCOME TO PLACEBOVILLE.

Many AFCs read the DJ bible and apply its teachings, and STILL CANT GET LAID! let me say this again:
Many AFCs read the DJ bible and apply its teachings, and STILL CANT GET LAID!

Objection, hearsay.
You are not speaking from personal experience, you are saying others cannot get laid after application of the DJ bible. If this is not from personal experience, you cannot base an argument on this. Oh, and I enjoy when some one says "Welcome to ______-ville" it really makes you sound credible.

um no. That is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that the poker example is an example of making the best decision to increase your success, where as this argument about the DJ bible is about infering the real truth about something. infering truth, and making good decisions to gain success are 2 totally different tasks. And as far as this argument goes, the DJ bible basically implies its pretty much always correct, so when we see a couple of counter examples, that is in fact enough to kill the theory the DJ bible is founded on.

Objection, opinion by an unqualified witness. Objection, hearsay. You are not able to determine at which point the Dj Bible is "killed" by a "couple of counter examples". You are 1)trying to make a decision based on a false sense of authority on the subject and 2)you are basing your argument on the experience of others.

If just so happens the very theory it is founded on doesnt work well in a world where even just a few counter examples exist. Try a better theory in its place. ie one that says its possible to be a pvssy, and still get women.

Objection, counsel's question call for a conclusion.
You can be a "pvssy" if thats how you want to run your game. But that still doesn't disprove the bible, it is just saying the bible doesnt work all the time. Well gravity is not a fact, it is still a theory. Gravity cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It works most of the time. Just like the Dj bible. It works most of the time, not every time. And not in every instance. But you are still arguing from the point that it was supposed to be fact.

ever heard of the placebo effect? educate yourself son:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect

Objection, the question is argumentative.
I have heard of the placebo effect. It is something that is used in scientific trials, in order to get a controlled source of data. There are too many variables to perform a proper control. We can't even continue with the scientific method because the results cannot be reproduced. Besides the obvious fact that a placebo is administered in an attempt to have a control group, meaning it is put up with the express purpose of giving neutral feedback. Yet you claim the bible is put up to be "fact" (although no claims by anyone say that is true) nevertheless you are contradicting yourself.

um, actually I do have information that can tell me if the DJ bible is correct: the DJ bible says pretty much all women are turned of by fearful men. Then comes along Babnik's example, which proves it as false. Babnik's example is the information that would tell me if its theory really is correct or not. However, when it comes to the catching the cold, knowing if you washed your hands today, or drank some juice really doesnt provide you with any information about why you didnt get the cold. My point stands, and your attempt to use it against me has failed.

Objection, calls for speculation.
We cannot make a determination that the girl thought he was being a wuss. Your point, does not stand.

I dont base the innacuracy of the DJ bible on how I do with women and weither or not Im applying DJ bible concepts (Im doing well with women by the way).

Good.

Im basing my arguement on logic.

No, you are basing it on opinion.

I understand what the DJ bible claims to be true, I look at valid and relevant real world observations, and its not holding up. This is called the scientific method,

The scientific method cannot be applied

obviously you dont know about it, becuase you are clearly trying to avoid admiting that Babnik's example is valid,

His example is not valid. We cannot accurately guess what she thought. How she reacted, does not reflect how she thought.

and proves the DJ bible's claims as wrong. Part of the scientific method is using all relevent and available observations. Babnik's example is relevent and valid, but your trying to act like his example is nothing, and should be ignored when considering the validity of the DJ bible. this clearly goes with against the scientific method.

The scientific method, cannot be used. Social interactions are not chemical reactions. If I am in a good mood, she is in a bad mood or horny or sad or happy or indifferent. If she decides to answer one way or the other and I respond one way or the other or with some sort of tone or a sly grin or a wink or what ever. Please use facts when you argue with me.

 

[Bonhomme]

He was checking out a girl in a cafeteria and thought she was real hot and I was leaving so I went up to her and said "That guy right there thinks you are hot *wink*" and I THOUGHT that it would make her think he is a wuss because he wouldn't approach

Or it might have made her think he had a laid-back, "devil may care" attitude.
There are many ways the same thing can be interpreted. I agree with the others that it served you right, anyway.

Compliments are OK as long as they're sincere and not overdone. Better yet to make sincere compliments about other people who are deserving.

 

[Ripper]

Objection, cumulavite information. Objection, misleading.
I never said I thought the bible was fact. NO ONE DID. Yes your argument is flawed, you cannot successfully argue this point, or the other side. You are saying it's always wrong, which you cannot prove or disprove. Making your argument flawed.




Objection, personal opinion.
Your personal opinion is NOT A FACT. It cannot be proven or disproven. I would ask you to give me factual proof, but you cannot. All you can do is give me your limited scope of a view. Due to the fact that you are arguing an opinion, you cannot begin to use the scientific method. The first step, yes, being an observance. The second step, description, (something that is repeatable) not possible. We are talking about millions of nuances that cannot be repeated. The prediction (step 3) cannot be inferred, nor can a control be created(step 4). There are other steps but, why bother. Two humans interacting is not boiled down to scientific facts. It sounds like the scientific method is over your head as well.


Objection, hearsay.
You are not speaking from personal experience, you are saying others cannot get laid after application of the DJ bible. If this is not from personal experience, you cannot base an argument on this. Oh, and I enjoy when some one says "Welcome to ______-ville" it really makes you sound credible.


Objection, opinion by an unqualified witness. Objection, hearsay. You are not able to determine at which point the Dj Bible is "killed" by a "couple of counter examples". You are 1)trying to make a decision based on a false sense of authority on the subject and 2)you are basing your argument on the experience of others.


Objection, counsel's question call for a conclusion.
You can be a "pvssy" if thats how you want to run your game. But that still doesn't disprove the bible, it is just saying the bible doesnt work all the time. Well gravity is not a fact, it is still a theory. Gravity cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It works most of the time. Just like the Dj bible. It works most of the time, not every time. And not in every instance. But you are still arguing from the point that it was supposed to be fact.





Objection, the question is argumentative.
I have heard of the placebo effect. It is something that is used in scientific trials, in order to get a controlled source of data. There are too many variables to perform a proper control. We can't even continue with the scientific method because the results cannot be reproduced. Besides the obvious fact that a placebo is administered in an attempt to have a control group, meaning it is put up with the express purpose of giving neutral feedback. Yet you claim the bible is put up to be "fact" (although no claims by anyone say that is true) nevertheless you are contradicting yourself.


Objection, calls for speculation.
We cannot make a determination that the girl thought he was being a wuss. Your point, does not stand.



Good.

No, you are basing it on opinion.

The scientific method cannot be applied

His example is not valid. We cannot accurately guess what she thought. How she reacted, does not reflect how she thought.

The scientific method, cannot be used. Social interactions are not chemical reactions. If I am in a good mood, she is in a bad mood or horny or sad or happy or indifferent. If she decides to answer one way or the other and I respond one way or the other or with some sort of tone or a sly grin or a wink or what ever. Please use facts when you argue with me.

This is complete and utter pwnage of God of Getting Laid.

 

[Vulpine]

I can't believe I didn't recognize you, God_of_getting_layed!

*unhooks velvet rope*

There's your name on the VIP*** list right there the whole time, they spelled it with a p, making it "God_of_getting_played". My mistake, go on in.

*clasps velvet rope*

***VIP: Very Ignored Person.

(VIP Room = Ignore list)

 

[Ripper]

I can't believe I didn't recognize you, God_of_getting_layed!

*unhooks velvet rope*

There's your name on the VIP*** list right there the whole time, they spelled it with a p, making it "God_of_getting_played". My mistake, go on in.

*clasps velvet rope*

***VIP: Very Ignored Person.

(VIP Room = Ignore list)

:crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Objection, cumulavite information. Objection, misleading.I never said I thought the bible was fact. NO ONE DID. Yes your argument is flawed, you cannot successfully argue this point, or the other side. You are saying it's always wrong, which you cannot prove or disprove. Making your argument flawed.

So then youre saying its not fact? lets see here:
my arguement: DJ bible is not fact
what you say: DJ bible is not fact. (see the 1st line of your above quote)

Holy shi1t!!! they both look exactly the same!!!! could it be?! could you be AGREEING WITH ME? :yes:

I find it Ironic someone is claiming my arguement is flawed, yet agrees with it. Its even weirder that this same person is trying to argue against an argument they agree with. You must be mentally retarded.

Objection, personal opinion.
Your personal opinion is NOT A FACT. It cannot be proven or disproven. I would ask you to give me factual proof, but you cannot. All you can do is give me your limited scope of a view. Due to the fact that you are arguing an opinion, you cannot begin to use the scientific method. The first step, yes, being an observance. The second step, description, (something that is repeatable) not possible. We are talking about millions of nuances that cannot be repeated. The prediction (step 3) cannot be inferred, nor can a control be created(step 4). There are other steps but, why bother. Two humans interacting is not boiled down to scientific facts. It sounds like the scientific method is over your head as well.

um, it looks to me here you are describing the scientific method for a controlled experiment. Science isnt limited to only experiments, its also about simply explaining the best fitting theory to a set of observations. Its definitely clear that the scientific method is over your head, you think that the correct way to scientifically carry out a controlled experiment is the same as scientifically concluding the best fitting theory to a set of observations. If you havent noticed, carrying out a controlled experiment, and trying to decide the best theory given a set of observations arent exactly the same. one no experiment is even involved.

This is really my whole argument son. One big theory the DJ bible praises is the theory that "all women dont like wussy men". given babnik's example, which is a relevent observation that cant be ignored if we want to stay scientifically consistent here, such a theory doesnt go well with. If all women dont like wussy men, then such an observation is impossible. But it has in fact been observed, so logic tells us we dont live in such a world where that theory holds true. A theory that explain's babnik's example better is this one: "its possible to be a pvssy, and still get women".

And by the way, you sound like a retard saying "objection!" over and over. It actually makes you appear dumber than you are. its Not helping you man.

Objection, opinion by an unqualified witness. Objection, hearsay. You are not able to determine at which point the Dj Bible is "killed" by a "couple of counter examples". You are 1)trying to make a decision based on a false sense of authority on the subject and 2)you are basing your argument on the experience of others.

Im basing my argument on a valid and relevant observations.
And it just so happens, babnik's example, kills the big generalization theory the DJ bible is founded on: all woman dont like wussy acting men. All you need is one counter example to kill an "always happens/always is" kind of theory. duhhhhh.

Objection, counsel's question call for a conclusion.
You can be a "pvssy" if thats how you want to run your game. But that still doesn't disprove the bible, it is just saying the bible doesnt work all the time. Well gravity is not a fact, it is still a theory. Gravity cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It works most of the time. Just like the Dj bible. It works most of the time, not every time. And not in every instance. But you are still arguing from the point that it was supposed to be fact.

um, if the DJ bible claims all women dont like pussies. THats the same as saying, "all the time, the DJ bible will be right about the woman not liking you becuase you are a *****." So if it aint right all the time, which yo admit right here, then its not "ALL WOMEN DONT LIKE PVSSIES" now is it?

try another one: "you can be a *****, and still get women" sounds like a good choice.

Im absolutely amazed at how you are trying to compare the DJ bible to the theory of gravity! HOW DARE YOU!! You BASTURD!! Newton is rolling over in his grave now.THe accuracy of the DJ bible can in no way ever be compared to the accuracy of the theory of gravity. Dont even go there man!

Objection, the question is argumentative.
I have heard of the placebo effect. It is something that is used in scientific trials, in order to get a controlled source of data. There are too many variables to perform a proper control. We can't even continue with the scientific method because the results cannot be reproduced. Besides the obvious fact that a placebo is administered in an attempt to have a control group, meaning it is put up with the express purpose of giving neutral feedback. Yet you claim the bible is put up to be "fact" (although no claims by anyone say that is true) nevertheless you are contradicting yourself.

What you are describing here is what a placebo IS and what it is USED FOR. what you are not describing here is the PLACEBO EFFECT. The placebo effect is what can happen to someone who takes a placebo. The placebo effect is where your expectations for something can have have some effect in what actually happens. ie. someone taking a placebo that they beleive is a hellucenogenic drug will report experiencing hellucinations, or if theyre expecting to get stronger after taking some kind of miracle weight lifting supplement, which is fake, they will "experience" an increase in strength. Alot of things can be causing this: perhaps if you expect to get stronger, you might be putting in more effort in lifting the weight, causing the supposed strength increase, or youll be putting in more effort in getting women becuase you expect success for the DJ bible placebo that you and many others have experienced. Well, You learn something new everyday!

oh, and the DJ bible doesnt explicitly say it is a fact. But it certainly implies this. YOuve got to be dumb if you cant see this.

Objection, calls for speculation.
We cannot make a determination that the girl thought he was being a wuss. Your point, does not stand.

Attractive women get this thing alot: some guy has his friend do the work for him becuase he's too afraid to do it himself. ie ask her out, ask for a number, or tell her he likes her.

Statistically speaking, we know she perceived a fearful man since she likely experienced such many times before in similar situations.

The scientific method, cannot be used. Social interactions are not chemical reactions...

You dont have to get a control group and an experiemntal group and pay them to participate in some experiment to be scientific. The scientific method is not limited to only experiments dumbass. It also involves drawing conclusions based on valid and relevant observations that would not have come from any kind of controlled experiment. heres some FYI, You can apply the scientific method to everday observations and form a conclusion explaining it. If a cop finds drugs on a guy, and the guy says "those arent mine, someone planted them", you dont need to conduct some kind of controlled experiment to know that he's lying. The cop already knows its very rare, that people randomly plant drugs on people and knows that drug users arent fairly common, so using such reasoning to conclude that he's lying could be considered scientific; he formed a hypothesis given physical evidence (the drugs, and the guy's story), and did so logicall and correctly using the reasoning mentioned. Same can be applied to confirm if the DJ bible is bull****.

 

[Babnik]

So then youre saying its not fact? lets see here:
my arguement: DJ bible is not fact
what you say: DJ bible is not fact. (see the 1st line of your above quote)

Holy shi1t!!! they both look exactly the same!!!! could it be?! could you be AGREEING WITH ME? :yes:

I find it Ironic someone is claiming my arguement is flawed, yet agrees with it. Its even weirder that this same person is trying to argue against an argument they agree with. You must be mentally retarded.


um, it looks to me here you are describing the scientific method for a controlled experiment. Science isnt limited to only experiments, its also about simply explaining the best fitting theory to a set of observations. Its definitely clear that the scientific method is over your head, you think that the correct way to scientifically carry out a controlled experiment is the same as scientifically concluding the best fitting theory to a set of observations. If you havent noticed, carrying out a controlled experiment, and trying to decide the best theory given a set of observations arent exactly the same. one no experiment is even involved.

This is really my whole argument son. One big theory the DJ bible praises is the theory that "all women dont like wussy men". given babnik's example, which is a relevent observation that cant be ignored if we want to stay scientifically consistent here, such a theory doesnt go well with. If all women dont like wussy men, then such an observation is impossible. But it has in fact been observed, so logic tells us we dont live in such a world where that theory holds true. A theory that explain's babnik's example better is this one: "its possible to be a pvssy, and still get women".

And by the way, you sound like a retard saying "objection!" over and over. It actually makes you appear dumber than you are. its Not helping you man.


Im basing my argument on a valid and relevant observations.
And it just so happens, babnik's example, kills the big generalization theory the DJ bible is founded on: all woman dont like wussy acting men. All you need is one counter example to kill an "always happens/always is" kind of theory. duhhhhh.


um, if the DJ bible claims all women dont like pussies. THats the same as saying, "all the time, the DJ bible will be right about the woman not liking you becuase you are a *****." So if it aint right all the time, which yo admit right here, then its not "ALL WOMEN DONT LIKE PVSSIES" now is it?

try another one: "you can be a *****, and still get women" sounds like a good choice.

Im absolutely amazed at how you are trying to compare the DJ bible to the theory of gravity! HOW DARE YOU!! You BASTURD!! Newton is rolling over in his grave now.THe accuracy of the DJ bible can in no way ever be compared to the accuracy of the theory of gravity. Dont even go there man!


What you are describing here is what a placebo IS and what it is USED FOR. what you are not describing here is the PLACEBO EFFECT. The placebo effect is what can happen to someone who takes a placebo. The placebo effect is where your expectations for something can have have some effect in what actually happens. ie. someone taking a placebo that they beleive is a hellucenogenic drug will report experiencing hellucinations, or if theyre expecting to get stronger after taking some kind of miracle weight lifting supplement, which is fake, they will "experience" an increase in strength. Alot of things can be causing this: perhaps if you expect to get stronger, you might be putting in more effort in lifting the weight, causing the supposed strength increase, or youll be putting in more effort in getting women becuase you expect success for the DJ bible placebo that you and many others have experienced. Well, You learn something new everyday!

oh, and the DJ bible doesnt explicitly say it is a fact. But it certainly implies this. YOuve got to be dumb if you cant see this.


Attractive women get this thing alot: some guy has his friend do the work for him becuase he's too afraid to do it himself. ie ask her out, ask for a number, or tell her he likes her.

Statistically speaking, we know she perceived a fearful man since she likely experienced such many times before in similar situations.


You dont have to get a control group and an experiemntal group and pay them to participate in some experiment to be scientific. The scientific method is not limited to only experiments dumbass. It also involves drawing conclusions based on valid and relevant observations that would not have come from any kind of controlled experiment. heres some FYI, You can apply the scientific method to everday observations and form a conclusion explaining it. If a cop finds drugs on a guy, and the guy says "those arent mine, someone planted them", you dont need to conduct some kind of controlled experiment to know that he's lying. The cop already knows its very rare, that people randomly plant drugs on people and knows that drug users arent fairly common, so using such reasoning to conclude that he's lying could be considered scientific; he formed a hypothesis given physical evidence (the drugs, and the guy's story), and did so logicall and correctly using the reasoning mentioned. Same can be applied to confirm if the DJ bible is bull****.

So, a placebo effect would be like:

JUST AN EXAMPLE, may not be true:

You are a total **** to a girl and she starts liking you. You experience that and you conclude that girls like *******s

However, 9 out of 10 girls do not. So, your conclusion is wrong.

Its like... They see an ugly guy with a hot girl and they conclude that looks don't matter.

 

[Babnik]

You fuсkin' people. Just can't let it go.

Neither can you, fugly.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

So, a placebo effect would be like:

JUST AN EXAMPLE, may not be true:

You are a total **** to a girl and she starts liking you. You experience that and you conclude that girls like *******s

However, 9 out of 10 girls do not. So, your conclusion is wrong.

Its like... They see an ugly guy with a hot girl and they conclude that looks don't matter.

LOL, no thats not what the placebo effect is at all. You have it totally wrong.

Placebo is when your own expectations of an outcome can, in a way, actually somewhat cause that outcome to happen. ie. if someone gave you a pill that would make your headache go away, which wasnt real at all, your expectation for it to work might actually make your head ache go away, or rather, you may interpret your headache pain as less than it was before.

As for getting women, the placebo effect would be someone telling you to try strategy A with women, and its supposed to bring you great success. You beleive it, but its a totally made up phony dating strategy. You might actually experience success anyway. In fact, just acting how you normally act might be enough to get somewomen, but you attribute your success to the strategy. Plus, hearing about the strategy just made your confidence and motivation very high, so you put in added effort which only helped your success even more. So what you have here is your expectations of it to work actually making it appear to have worked. When really, it doesnt work, you would really have done just as good without it.

As for your example about being an *******. Its totally fvcked up. how would some @sshole apporaching women and gets one girl when girls dont like @ssholes make me wrong? If the guy concludes it is his @ssholeness that brings him success when 9/10 women dont like it, Id say hes very stupid, and doesnt know how to analyze things and come to the correct conclusion. To come to such a conclusion, he would have to totally be ignoring the observation of many "Not an @sshole" men who have girl friends. He would also have to be ignoring observation of some of the women he approached who would undoubtedly say something like "fvck you jerk!" and then walking away from him. I mean, when coming to a conclusion, you need to consider all relevent observations, this doesnt just include your own experience, but also how you see other men doing with women.

That was a really bad example. Its not even an example of logical or scientific reasoning. If 9/10 women dont like *******s is true, any asshold would certainly be observing things that suggest women DONT like *******s, and should not come to such a conclusion. Theres more to drawing your conclusion than just looking at that one exceptional girl who still liked you even though youre an @sshole.

But its a good example for demonstrating how and why the DJ bible came to be. Many people who buy into the DJ bible block out many observations when drawing their conclusion that it must be accurate. Just as the @sshole would have blocked out the observation of some women clearly getting insulted by him as well as the observation of the great abundance of "NOT @sshole"
men who have girlfriends etc.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

God of Getting Layed [sic] you are confused on so many levels. Oh, the scientific method. Yeah I never heard of it . . . even though I took and got 4s and 5s in AP Physics, Chemistry and Biology in High School, went to the University of Chicago (where I graduated with special honors) and studied Karl Popper, among others. What an insecure loser you must be to think you're the most educated person here.

Thats great, so youve heard of it. THat doesnt mean you are applying scientific reasoning to your understanding of women or to conclude the accuracy of the DJ bible. Nor does it mean you actually understand it. Its not uncommon for people to understand the "rules" in detail of the scientific method or about the stuff they learned in these advanced AP physics classes and at the same time, not know where or how they apply.

Your problem is you think part of knowledge, the rational and formulaic part, is the whole of knowledge.

I look at the world, and draw my conclusions using logic. I consider all observations and try to come up with the best explanation logically. This is called being scientific. This is over your head. Sorry Im interested in knowing the actual truth about the world I live in and know what approach to take to get that truth.

It's not,

Thanks for posting the link to that essay. It was a bunch of babble. If anyone else wants to read some essay babbling off, go ahead and read. A disclaimer though: it doesnt relate to my views, and so is a bit off topic.

and this is particularly true in human interactions. Generals, chefs, sales people, businessmen, etc. all often work under uncertainty and with anecdotal data. But they're not all equals in their crafts. Successful ones don't ignore street knowledge, intuition, their own experiences, and received traditional wisdom because it's not been confirmed in a double blind study or using regression analysis.

And becuase they work under uncertainty and anecdoatal data, that is why they arent making the true absolute best decisions in their respective field. THey may not be making the worst decisions, but theyre not making the best ones either. Making "Good enough" decisions may be satisfactory to these people, but if they want to be making the true absolute best decisions, they would have to turn to tedious analysis and data collection.

oh and by the way, I know what Regression analysis is. Ive been well educated in statistics. I dont need you to provide me with a link on what it is. Im very sure my knowledge in this area far exceeds yours

Much of what they "know" can't be put in a book; and reading a book on what any of them knows will not make you a great chef, general, and sales person.

As for being a good chef or general, its definitely possible to put it in a book, and one could definitely understand it after reading a book. But what they couldnt do is apply it, becuase being a good chef is more than just decision making, its also about being fast in making those desicions, one could understand it, but might take a while to use such logic to formulate their decision. Its also about being skilled using the tools to make the food, ie being good working with knives, cooking tools etc. But this isnt about that. This is about the very theory of the DJ bible alone is seriously flawed. Im not even going to go there about if one could even apply it even it it were right. Thats another discussion.

The gazillions of micro-adjustments needed in complex activities come from experience, natural talent, and other factors and can't be easily taught and put into a formula appropriate for an egghead Asperger's Syndrome victim like yourself. Knowledge has two halves. The second half is experiential, and it's especially important in the art of seduction.

Even if it could, I guarantee you these "experts" arent playing their "best strategy". Even the worlds best chess players, poker players etc arent playing the best strategy possible. So even if they could put it into some kind of book, it wouldnt be right anyway. So why the hell should we beleive that the DJ bible is based on true expert advice? we shouldnt becuase its not. ITs sooo far from the correct way to get women. The DJ bible isnt even in the range of "good enough". All Im aksing is someone replace it one that is qualified to be in the "good enough" range. Im not asking for some perfect dating manual. to do this, it will have to be accurate about its predictions about women. it fails blunderously in this area.

There is not easy way to get the kind of data you seek. We must stumble about with anecdotes, personal experience, common sense, deep observation, and some basic ideas about female psychology that have been known by everyone from Homer to Shakespeare since time immemorial.

Its this very logic, where you think you can get by with anecdotes as to why the DJ bible sucks in the 1st place. You cant get away with using only anecdotes.

Your supposed concern for rigor is just a mask for your desire not to improve yourself, your desire to drag down others with you, and your desire to show off your not particularly impressive exposure to basic math and science. Go study some philosophy--the most g-loaded of the humanities--and learn what you don't know and take for granted.

Oh yeah man, youre a fvcking genious. You figured me out! I dont have a desire to improve my self, and on top of that, Im bent on showing this board that I suck at math and science. [/end sarcasm] yeah, that made absolutely no sense. Oh, and speaking of Not impressive exposure to mat and science, that poker example of yours was soo awesome. It really showed how smart you are! Hey, you forgot to mention the game theoretical aspect of poker in that, just a tip

Guys, don't listen to this guy. He's a fraud.

No, youre the fraud. You have already demonstrated you have no idea what you are talking about. Its a good thing trolls like you have been banned.

[/I]He doesn't want to improve himself, he wants to chain himself down with the pedantic formulas that make him feel superior, and he wants to undermine this good work of collective wisdom because something that would be unbelievably expensive and incredibly hard to construct is not available.

that makes no sense. What kind of human doesnt want to improve himself?
to call the DJ bible "good work of collective wisdom" makes me question how you could have possibly even been put in an advance AP physics and science class. I mean, to call the DJ bible such a thing would be Heresy in the scientific community, it would also offend many scientists and philosophers.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

ah, fortunate juan hasnt replied.....I got him owned! :yes: