Stagger Lee said:
First of all they are all very rich and famous. It was said from the outset that great wealth, fame and status makes a man's looks irrelevent. Just about any guy could bang a 10 in looks prostitute too with the right money and drugs. Also I think you are underrating these guys' looks and appearance, but the important thing is they are wealthy and famous.
Yes but these guys also dated/married women who were themselves rich and famous....sometimes more rich and famous than the guys they were with. Thus, money and fame weren't factors for them. Another example would be Russell Brand and Katy Perry. Sure Russell Brand is tall and I wouldn't call him ugly, but he's not usually cast in the "heart throb" role. Katy Perry is just as rich and famous and if not more famous than he is.
Yes, this is how one oftentimes could really improve their game. PUA gives lip service to these factors since they touch on everything under the sun, but actionable ways of improving these factors are not receiving the full focus. It would be hard to do through online communications and isn't easy to effectively change your nonverbals and body language.
I agree that it's tough to give instructions on non-verbals etc. through text. But a lot of PUA gurus and forums promote the idea of filming yourself, looking at yourself in the mirror and practicing improving your body language and posture. RSD for example has several videos on body language and how to improve your subcommunication.
Generally, subcommunication is considered more important than the actual content of what you say.
I'm not going to nitpick the reality of your scenario. Number's game is valid. That's not what's in dispute. Guy B played the numbers game more. My argument is that for Guy B to have the success he had with playing the numbers, his looks and appearance were big factors. Ie, Guy C is 6'1, 190 lbs, seemingly average to above average lookwise and runs similar game tactics but gets 0-1% success rate. I'd say there was something not good enough for women about Guy C's appearance, and you'd say it's his "game". Hell, I am guy C.
Numbers game
is a big part of game. Arguably it's
the single most important aspect of game. We've talked a lot about negs on this thread, but it seems people have completely ignored that a lot of pickup material deals with getting over approach anxiety, not taking rejection personally etc.
For an average to above average guy to have a 0-1% success rate would mean that he must be incredibly socially inept. I would bet money that if most guys just sucked it up and approached 10 girls rated HB7 and above, they would have some success if only by chance alone.
Hell I remember when I was terrified to do approaches. I was nervous and socially awkward and I used to eject at the first sign that the girl wasn't completely interested. Even then, I could close an HB6s or 7 in under 10 approaches.
Anyway, If people who believe it's all about game meant that game was just a numbers game and lowering your standards then we'd have nothing to disagree with.
No one said anything about lowering your standards. The point is a guy who is a 9, obviously has a better chance of bagging an HB9 than a guy who is a 7 (assuming their level of game is equal). But the guy who is a 7's chances aren't zero. Let's say Mr. 9 has a 60% chance of success and Mr. 7 has a 10% chance (completely made up probabilities). With 10 approaches, Mr. 7 should still be able to land an HB9.
But that's just it. Game is analagous to weightlifting and shredded with a six-pack is analagous to results from genetics or in other words looks.
You get a six-pack if you have around 10% body fat or less (most people have large enough rectus abdominus muscles). Yes for some people, the results are easier to obtain thanks to genetics but just about anyone could get a six-pack and get get shredded if they were willing to put in the time and the effort unless they have some sort of major metabolic disorder.
Getting jacked is simple. Of course that doesn't mean it's easy, but the blueprint is pretty straightforward. The question is whether people are going to have the determination, self discipline and desire to succeed.
I think you're are suggesting that just like everyone who goes to the gym doesn't train right and hard enough to get intended results, so do people who try to game women. But that's the problem. One can always say you're not gaming (training) right/hard enough to get the results (muscles or girls). But in both cases, genetic potential or looks/appearance can and are factors.
Not everyone can be Ronny Coleman or Jay Cutler, but everyone can get muscular and have a low body fat percentage if they train, rest and eat right (barring some sort of metabolic disorder or physical debility of course).
Now is everyone willing to put in the effort? Is everyone willing to go through the pain that's necessary to succeed? Is everyone going to have the self-discipline necessary to stick to a routine and to eat right? Of course not.
It's not easy, but it is possible.
Of course I've tried game that's floated around. I was even in a lair for several years. I had to drop most of it. The only connection to increasing picking up of girls I found was number's game, lowering standards and looking better.
This hasn't been my experience, personally. My success rate with women has gone up exponentially since I started learning about game roughly 5 years ago. Granted, I have also been working on improving my appearance/looks but that usually goes hand in hand with game.
That's the whole point. There's no standardization of game curiculum and definitions and there probably can't ever be.There's no real data about success rate. My belief is if you approached 100 random girls you would get between a 0-10% F-closes almost regardless of your game approach within reason. Your success rate and how attractive the girls are would mostly depend on your looks and appearance. That's what I believe.
And like I said before, the numbers game is a big part of game. That being said, I also think that with more approaches you also improve your social skills and thus you can do a number of things to improve your chances of success besides looking better.
That would be interesting. As long as both groups were instructed that the goal was to get a same night lay or day 2, I predict you'd find little correlation between game course and non-game course on the number and attractiveness rating of the girls. I think the better looking/appearing guys from either group would do better.
I'm sure looks would play a role. I'm not disputing that. But I think the game group would have statistically significant better overall results.
Hey, like I said earlier, maybe we could fund this research study through Kickstarter?
This has informally sort of been done. Lair guys often get left in the dust by other non-PUA guys picking up more and better looking women.
Pickup is about improving your individual success with women. It's no good comparing the results of a much better looking guy to an average or below average looking guy. But if it could be shown that an average/below average looking guy who produced better results with game than than other average/below average guys, that would demonstrate the efficacy of game.
