The Truth About 'Game' vs LMS

[fastlife]

First thing first:

Actual Value =/= Perceived Value

Anyone disagree? Are Jordan 11s worth $240? Objectively, functionally, relative to their utility or quality of construction or aesthetic appeal or durability in regards to other shoes that cost much less, no. But, on the other hand, they are worth $240 because, if you want a pair, that's what you'll pay for them--and when a new color/trim comes out people will stand in line or pay even more on third party retailers.

You might be asking, @fastlife I thought we were talking about Game--what do shoes have to do with that?

Well, if people pay $240 for a pair of shoes, does it not open up the possibility that they might not be totally rational agents?

Looks, Money, Status are all quantifiable--or at least physically observable. They are objective; standards can be set and people can be judged and place in a rational hierarchy accordingly. But they are also context-dependent--their relative value is constantly in flux. The most physically attractive man in 500 sq miles of backwoods Missouri would be below average in a room full of Calvin Klein models. A high level computer programmer is high status at his job--he has the title to prove it. This status might even carry over into his dating life, if he's dating women who are seeking a provider at that particular moment. But put him in the hottest club in a college town and see how much people care about his job title.

But wait, money is money...right? Right? On a desert island, all the money in the world won't do you any good when all anyone wants is a mothafvckin coconut.

Frame matters.

The perception of any given value depends on frame. What is frame? The parameters of any given interaction; your way of seeing the world vs. other people's way of seeing the world. But, wait, wait, shouldn't objective reality be the strongest frame? People might be tricked temporarily but shouldn't they eventually make rational decisions based on actual value?

And I'm here to remind you about the $240 pair of Jordans. Nike's frame, as long as they can keep selling them for $240 is THE dominant frame. No amount of reason will convince anyone who bought a pair that they didn't just make a good purchase. Emotionally, they feel like that pair of Js was worth $240.

Nike understands Game. Nike understands that by appealing to people's emotions, by presenting value effectively, by controlling supply to create the illusion of scarcity, they can overpower the objective value of a pair of tennis shoes.

Let's pretend we're opening a car lot.

The LMS equivalent would be to make sure you stock the best car brands, and you polish them and keep them impeccably clean, but you can't advertise cause that'd be fake and try hard and none of that salesmanship trickery cause that'd be fake and people should see the value of these cars. And maybe if you have the perfect location, people will stumble in and buy a car from time to time--if they came to the lot specifically to buy a car. So whose frame is dominant? Yours, or the consumers?

But, let's say a competitor opens a lot across the street. They have one of those big azz wobbly inflatable men and a big azz red sign and, when you come in, they have a sleek lobby and give you a selection of semi-gourmet coffee, and the salesman seems like a nice young man and he graduated from the same high school as your daughter, and, well, you're only here to look, but you sure would look nice in that new SUV and it has room in the back for when you have to drop your daughter off for college and they're about to sell out of this particular model and aren't sure when they're going to get another shipment.

Who's going to sell more cars? And will their ability to sell more cars be based on the objective quality of the selection...or the fact that humans make emotional decisions and rationalize value afterwards The richest, highest status men in the country figured out the answer to this question a longtime ago. So, yeah, go ahead and argue that actual value matters more than the effective presentation of that value.

 

[skinnyguy]

Honestly I don’t want women attracted to me for my money. It’s not true attraction. True attraction is when she bangs you even though you’re unemployed and wants nothing in return.

I believe game works. But only on who were already initially attracted to my looks.

 

[Urbanyst]

OP.. everything in this world is "context-dependent" lol.

LMS gives a man something he doesn't have to constantly "prove" or engage in fraud to get. CONSISTENT access to HOT women.

But as anyone who can get women without referring to the distorted twists of the PUA industry knows, there are no rules to the game. It is not a 12 step program. But it is definitely a game.

LOL.

That's a contradictory statement if I ever saw one.

Of course there are RULES to what makes a man attractive and high VALUE. You may not know the rules, but they definitely exist.

SMV determines your level of dating success. Looks, MONEY and status. After that, compatibility (VALUE) in a relationship.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

It's even more simple than that.

LMS generates attraction. Game is the play by play way of handling the typical interactions that occur between two people attracted to each other. When one facet compliments the other, and vice versa, you generate and increase compatibility. The higher the compatibility, the greater overall value those two people experience. This is why two different guys can attract the same woman but she will ultimately choose with one man over the other, because of the different ways these men handle those interactions (confidence vs. insecurity, jealousy/desperation vs. high self-esteem/abundance, etc......AKA, game).

Guys like Urbanyst and Grit consistently claim that everyone else, but themselves of course, believe game generates attraction, which it does not, at least not in any primary sense, yet this false conclusion they project onto everyone else is the crux of all of their arguments made against those very same people they're projecting upon.

It doesn't help matters when the PUA industry took basic game, turned it into a 12 step process with strict rules and then cheesed it up with crap like peacocking and canned routines, which makes it so much easier to rail against it, especially now in hindsight of that awful trend (which I thought was cheesy and comically stupid even at the height of its popularity).

But as anyone who can get women without referring to the distorted twists of the PUA industry knows, there are no rules to the game. It is not a 12 step program. But it is definitely a game.

I think game does adjust emotions. And you don't have to be a model to take advantage of that. If you have two equivalent LMS the one with more "game" will be more interesting and attractive.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

"Game" could bed chicks using another guy as the "money guy" while the game guy gets to sleep with the ladies. Game is like a nuclear bomb, a fighting system against unorganized fighting.

 

[BeExcellent]

Added to the nuance of socially adroit interaction (game), are the preferences of the individual in question.

You might have two equally LMS equally SMV men...I'm going to prefer one more than the other. That preference will be influenced by game...but also by my own preferences that I look for.

Personal preferences and game trumps LMS all the time in male/female dynamics. Not always, but often enough to be an observable trend. If a woman likes a particular man enough, this business of hypergamous behavior does not apply because the woman is choosing on criteria besides hypergamy.

Honestly that ought to be good news. While everyone should try to improve themselves as much as they are able in an LMS sense, it still leaves room for a chick that likes certain inherent traits in a particular man...and will choose that man because of something intrinsic to him that is not just straight up LMS.

Game and social ability and personality or mutual interests or mutual background are all things that might be seen as desirable by an individual woman.

You can make a perfectly valid argument that SMV is dependent on how it lines up next to individual preferences. In the same group of men man I assign the highest SMV may not be the man my sister assigns the highest SMV, for example. SMV is thus subjective to a great degree, especially when the playing field is pretty level from a LMS standpoint.

 

[guru1000]

Added to the nuance of socially adroit interaction (game), are the preferences of the individual in question.

You might have two equally LMS equally SMV men...I'm going to prefer one more than the other. That preference will be influenced by game...but also by my own preferences that I look for.

Personal preferences and game trumps LMS all the time in male/female dynamics. Not always, but often enough to be an observable trend. If a woman likes a particular man enough, this business of hypergamous behavior does not apply because the woman is choosing on criteria besides hypergamy.

Honestly that ought to be good news. While everyone should try to improve themselves as much as they are able in an LMS sense, it still leaves room for a chick that likes certain inherent traits in a particular man...and will choose that man because of something intrinsic to him that is not just straight up LMS.

Game and social ability and personality or mutual interests or mutual background are all things that might be seen as desirable by an individual woman.

You can make a perfectly valid argument that SMV is dependent on how it lines up next to individual preferences. In the same group of men man I assign the highest SMV may not be the man my sister assigns the highest SMV, for example. SMV is thus subjective to a great degree, especially when the playing field is pretty level from a LMS standpoint.

Word.

 

[fastlife]

It's even more simple than that.

LMS generates attraction.

LMS generates interest. Interest =/= Sexual Attraction. Behavior; your vibe, body language, nonverbal communication; your words, are what generates sexual attraction. Have I fvcked girls just because I was good looking and they were horny and I was in the right place at the right time? Yeah--but those are customers who came to the lot to buy a car. Whose frame is that?

Just like there are girls you can pay money to fvck. Whose frame is that?

Just like there are girls that will fvck Odell Beckham at a club and post it on social media for validation. Whose frame is that?

Looks, Money, Status are all forebrain recognitions. They exist in the logical realm. Any sexual interaction that takes place in that realm will be inherently opportunistic.

That's all fine & good--but there are also certain things you can do or say--and eventually be--that will more or less exempt you from those considerations--consistently. I'm not saying 'You can have any girl you want,' or even half of them. Like you mentioned & @BeExcellent expounded on: Compatibility matters; Personal circumstance matters; a Girl's self-esteem, her relationship with her father, the cologne her first boyfriend in high school wore, matters. You're still playing the odds. But whether you can seal the deal or not--and a lot of the time you can't--you can incite an emotional reaction to generate at least a modicum of attraction to the extent that all logical considerations fall by the wayside with a majority of the girls you meet. Point. Stop. Period.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

you can incite an emotional reaction to generate at least a modicum of attraction to the extent that all logical considerations fall by the wayside with a majority of the girls you meet. Point. Stop. Period.

Basically aligning yourself on the ‘lover’ spectrum instead of the ‘provider’ one. You probably aren’t her first option, but you’re still there nonetheless.

 

[Spaz]

OP.. everything in this world is "context-dependent" lol.

LMS gives a man something he doesn't have to constantly "prove" or engage in fraud to get. CONSISTENT access to HOT women.



LOL.

That's a contradictory statement if I ever saw one.

Of course there are RULES to what makes a man attractive and high VALUE. You may not know the rules, but they definitely exist.

SMV determines your level of dating success. Looks, MONEY and status. After that, compatibility (VALUE) in a relationship.

LMS = Pulling power.

GAME/PASSION = Staying power.

A combination of the above is ideal, and would get the most result.

 

[devilkingx2]

The importance of game is shown when a girl warms up to you

Logically your LMS is mostly on display from the beginning of the interaction, so if it was solely or mostly LMS then she wouldn't warm up to you at all, either you'd open to a highly interested girl or a low/no interest girl and that would be that.

So if you've ever had an interaction get better after the opener then what happened? Did you get richer and better looking mid sentence?

And if you've ever had an interaction go to **** mid sentence, what happened? Did your boss walk up to you and fire you right in front of her followed by your high school bully giving you a wedgie?

Obviously not.

 

[sosousage]

First thing first:

Actual Value =/= Perceived Value

Anyone disagree? Are Jordan 11s worth $240? Objectively, functionally, relative to their utility or quality of construction or aesthetic appeal or durability in regards to other shoes that cost much less, no. But, on the other hand, they are worth $240 because, if you want a pair, that's what you'll pay for them--and when a new color/trim comes out people will stand in line or pay even more on third party retailers.

You might be asking, @fastlife I thought we were talking about Game--what do shoes have to do with that?

Well, if people pay $240 for a pair of shoes, does it not open up the possibility that they might not be totally rational agents?

Looks, Money, Status are all quantifiable--or at least physically observable. They are objective; standards can be set and people can be judged and place in a rational hierarchy accordingly. But they are also context-dependent--their relative value is constantly in flux. The most physically attractive man in 500 sq miles of backwoods Missouri would be below average in a room full of Calvin Klein models. A high level computer programmer is high status at his job--he has the title to prove it. This status might even carry over into his dating life, if he's dating women who are seeking a provider at that particular moment. But put him in the hottest club in a college town and see how much people care about his job title.

But wait, money is money...right? Right? On a desert island, all the money in the world won't do you any good when all anyone wants is a mothafvckin coconut.

Frame matters.

The perception of any given value depends on frame. What is frame? The parameters of any given interaction; your way of seeing the world vs. other people's way of seeing the world. But, wait, wait, shouldn't objective reality be the strongest frame? People might be tricked temporarily but shouldn't they eventually make rational decisions based on actual value?

And I'm here to remind you about the $240 pair of Jordans. Nike's frame, as long as they can keep selling them for $240 is THE dominant frame. No amount of reason will convince anyone who bought a pair that they didn't just make a good purchase. Emotionally, they feel like that pair of Js was worth $240.

Nike understands Game. Nike understands that by appealing to people's emotions, by presenting value effectively, by controlling supply to create the illusion of scarcity, they can overpower the objective value of a pair of tennis shoes.

Let's pretend we're opening a car lot.

The LMS equivalent would be to make sure you stock the best car brands, and you polish them and keep them impeccably clean, but you can't advertise cause that'd be fake and try hard and none of that salesmanship trickery cause that'd be fake and people should see the value of these cars. And maybe if you have the perfect location, people will stumble in and buy a car from time to time--if they came to the lot specifically to buy a car. So whose frame is dominant? Yours, or the consumers?

But, let's say a competitor opens a lot across the street. They have one of those big azz wobbly inflatable men and a big azz red sign and, when you come in, they have a sleek lobby and give you a selection of semi-gourmet coffee, and the salesman seems like a nice young man and he graduated from the same high school as your daughter, and, well, you're only here to look, but you sure would look nice in that new SUV and it has room in the back for when you have to drop your daughter off for college and they're about to sell out of this particular model and aren't sure when they're going to get another shipment.

Who's going to sell more cars? And will their ability to sell more cars be based on the objective quality of the selection...or the fact that humans make emotional decisions and rationalize value afterwards The richest, highest status men in the country figured out the answer to this question a longtime ago. So, yeah, go ahead and argue that actual value matters more than the effective presentation of that value.

tldr ; give up on women till u get dat money

 

[Trump]

First thing first:

Actual Value =/= Perceived Value

Anyone disagree? Are Jordan 11s worth $240? Objectively, functionally, relative to their utility or quality of construction or aesthetic appeal or durability in regards to other shoes that cost much less, no. But, on the other hand, they are worth $240 because, if you want a pair, that's what you'll pay for them--and when a new color/trim comes out people will stand in line or pay even more on third party retailers.

You might be asking, @fastlife I thought we were talking about Game--what do shoes have to do with that?

Well, if people pay $240 for a pair of shoes, does it not open up the possibility that they might not be totally rational agents?

Looks, Money, Status are all quantifiable--or at least physically observable. They are objective; standards can be set and people can be judged and place in a rational hierarchy accordingly. But they are also context-dependent--their relative value is constantly in flux. The most physically attractive man in 500 sq miles of backwoods Missouri would be below average in a room full of Calvin Klein models. A high level computer programmer is high status at his job--he has the title to prove it. This status might even carry over into his dating life, if he's dating women who are seeking a provider at that particular moment. But put him in the hottest club in a college town and see how much people care about his job title.

But wait, money is money...right? Right? On a desert island, all the money in the world won't do you any good when all anyone wants is a mothafvckin coconut.

Frame matters.

The perception of any given value depends on frame. What is frame? The parameters of any given interaction; your way of seeing the world vs. other people's way of seeing the world. But, wait, wait, shouldn't objective reality be the strongest frame? People might be tricked temporarily but shouldn't they eventually make rational decisions based on actual value?

And I'm here to remind you about the $240 pair of Jordans. Nike's frame, as long as they can keep selling them for $240 is THE dominant frame. No amount of reason will convince anyone who bought a pair that they didn't just make a good purchase. Emotionally, they feel like that pair of Js was worth $240.

Nike understands Game. Nike understands that by appealing to people's emotions, by presenting value effectively, by controlling supply to create the illusion of scarcity, they can overpower the objective value of a pair of tennis shoes.

Let's pretend we're opening a car lot.

The LMS equivalent would be to make sure you stock the best car brands, and you polish them and keep them impeccably clean, but you can't advertise cause that'd be fake and try hard and none of that salesmanship trickery cause that'd be fake and people should see the value of these cars. And maybe if you have the perfect location, people will stumble in and buy a car from time to time--if they came to the lot specifically to buy a car. So whose frame is dominant? Yours, or the consumers?

But, let's say a competitor opens a lot across the street. They have one of those big azz wobbly inflatable men and a big azz red sign and, when you come in, they have a sleek lobby and give you a selection of semi-gourmet coffee, and the salesman seems like a nice young man and he graduated from the same high school as your daughter, and, well, you're only here to look, but you sure would look nice in that new SUV and it has room in the back for when you have to drop your daughter off for college and they're about to sell out of this particular model and aren't sure when they're going to get another shipment.

Who's going to sell more cars? And will their ability to sell more cars be based on the objective quality of the selection...or the fact that humans make emotional decisions and rationalize value afterwards The richest, highest status men in the country figured out the answer to this question a longtime ago. So, yeah, go ahead and argue that actual value matters more than the effective presentation of that value.

Bro I don't know about that. If you are going to buy an $80,000 car because the spokesmodel holds your hand and knows your son, the world will make your head spin.

It's about use. Women don't care about LMS and game if they have use for you.

 

[Spaz]

Bro I don't know about that. If you are going to buy an $80,000 car because the spokesmodel holds your hand and knows your son, the world will make your head spin.

It's about use. Women don't care about LMS and game if they have use for you.

Agree.

However OP has raised a believe which touches on pretty much what I myself believe in and I think he did a good job trying to explain it.

 

[Von]

Men consistently file into this site, each of which at some point work themselves up to posting their story. And it is a familiar story. He likes a girl. She did this. She did that. And he asks: Does she like me? Should I kiss her? I need help! Salut should I do?!


These men all have the same problem: they know exactly what you're talking about. Interest does not equal sexual attraction.

And that is their biggest problem. They are paralyzed by it. They will not make a move because they are not sure. Is she just friendly? Or is she attracted to him? God forbid he took ACTION and discovers he was mistaken.

What YOU are talking about is the first and only thing on the minds of these men.

It is the last thing they should be thinking about.

So you can go ahead and break attraction down into its components and point out the differences. That's fine. But it is not necessary.

Simplicity is key. Action is what allows sexual attraction to manifest into a physical reality. Action makes something happen, and that leads to another action.

Game is action. Everything else is attraction.

Simple. Stop. Period.

Amande, you awesome and Fastlife too

However, I find this post... true but incomplete.

You say Action is Game, Action allows sexual interaction and escalation.

You are right, Action leads to results.

Where I found the answer incomplet is this: You need specific Actions.

Actions done wrong will not give expected results.

You need to think about the outcome, than Action towards the outcome.

The first step is always import, Action is key.

Alot of people are afraid.

Rejection is better than regret.

However, alot of people have the "action" but they are clueless about the "specific action / right action"

The right action is always contextual. Attraction is contextual.

PUA taught techniques for a reason. People could act... but didn't act well or proper.

It's the different between a newbie and a pro or master.

Have you noticed how masters at sport or game or professions seems always to make complex stuff sounds so simple and easy ?

Its the rhythm and practice that allows them mastery, and they have passions with understanding.

Action is better than doing nothing... for sure.
But you need to learn and grow.
Your actions should be able to answer in the best way possible according to your context (and girl context), the desired outcome.

Buy tools (LMS) is just a way to avoid having to "learn/action"

Tools might attract..but even the best tools in the hand of a newbie... will have no better results than a newbie using the worst tools.

A master of game if you give him the worst tools will still do something better than the newbie with the best and most expensive tools.

Game is actions.
Game is learning context
Game is about using the right leverage at the right time in the right context

 

[Urbanyst]

LMS = Pulling power.

GAME/PASSION = Staying power.

A combination of the above is ideal, and would get the most result.

Nope.

LMS = Pulling power.

COMPATIBILITY = Staying power.

 

[Urbanyst]

It is not, because human behavior itself is often contradictory.



I am not speaking of attraction and value. I am speaking about interaction. You can do something with one woman, then do the same thing with another and get different results. You cannot develop a solid "rule" from such inconsistencies (there are no definitive rules), but you definitely have to make a play either way (it is still a game).

There are no "rules" to interaction just proves "game" is bullsh*t lol.

Thanks.

 

[Spaz]

Nope.

LMS = Pulling power.

COMPATIBILITY = Staying power.

No worries. I understand ur need to disprove game.

LMS is all you have running at the moment.

Given time you will learn game.

 

[btownbuck2012]

Relates to every part of life. I'm a believer that most people WANT to be sucked into someone else's frame, even if it is only a subconscious desire. But they definitely want it, they are looking for that guidance, direction, etc.

I do stand up comedy as a hobby outside of work. The biggest lesson I learned that directly preceded some pretty decent success was understanding that I couldn't wait to get a positive reaction from the crowd before I could get comfortable on stage. My frame had to dictate how the audience felt about me, not the other way around.

Same thing with approaching women. The blank stare or acting upset sh*t test throws a-lot of guys because they are waiting for her to give him the green light to feel OK about himself. You've gotta just plow through that sh*t. That's what frame is. And it doesn't mean you're a d*ck or rude to people. The goal should be having a benevolent frame that is so encompassing and absorbing that people are excited and confidently calm about being a-part of it - but that won't come until you genuinely love yourself. You can't fake it.

It's truly ironic how if you're a shy, anxious person you are actually CAUSING other people to react to you in a negative way. Your worry and insecurity about yourself is causing others worry and insecurity about themselves! Your waiting for them to give you a "buying signal" or "green light", and not getting it, that indicates they want to get to know you better or talk to you is directly inhibited by YOU not feeling that way about yourself. You don't think you're worth getting to know or talking to! Again, until you GENUINELY like yourself, this destructive cycle will continue.

It's a tremendous catch 22 and even though I've been through a-lot of bulls*hit in my life to get to where I'm at now, I'm incredibly thankful I've learned this principal and understand the dynamics behind it.

 

[Roober]

Can't we all just agree that LMS and game are not in competition of one another, they are in a symbiotic relationship of one another.

Would you agree that LMS and game alone are capable of attracting women?
Would you also agree the LMS and game alone are capable of losing a woman?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the steps to a general beta are...
1. Work on inner game and outer game simultaneously
2. Find your purpose, which will inherently improve both your money and status, because acquiring money and status often takes much longer

None of the four items (game, looks, money, status) are mutually exclusive for establishing or maintaining relationships.