No offense, but this thread reminds me of this thread: Tip: Lower Your Standards, LMAO. There's a reason the guy who made up stuff like that to attract controversy got banned.
Snap out of it.
Snap out of it.
I do love how people always say they don't want to get into one of those discussions after getting in their little say. Scientic fields rely on slightly more complex data than saying half of 10 plus 10 equals 10. If you can't see the difference there then you really shouldn't be involved on one of those discussions.RedPill said:If that's the case, then how are fields such as medicine, genetics, sociology, and marketing possible? They all rely on quantifiable data based on the predictable chemical and physical behaviors of humans. But I'm not here to get into one of those discussions...
Hmm... maybe it's time to move to Vegas.S1NN3R said:I've personally been in clubs, pissed off that I was dragged out for whatever reason, usually because some friend was visiting Vegas and wanted to go out even though I had more important things to do, not even dressed up, just standing in a corner waiting to be done, and I've taken home 9s, somehow.
diplomatic_lies said:All social interaction is an ART, not a SCIENCE. That's why nerds (ie. scientists) can make up all these mathematical theories of seduction, but never get laid.
Sure, like I said in my first post in this topic, odds are that the more physically attractive you are, the more looks and unsolicited attention you will get without any other contact with the girls. But I don't agree that any one aspect of a person can be considered the definitive factor in who will be attracted to them in the end. If you're a 7 and you are only attracted to 10s, you might have a harder time at it than others who are looking for 7s and below, but nothing that's easy is worth doing.RedPill said:Strength of game is what really matters but looks do have a say getting you in the door/getting her attention.