Chase's Advice Not Working For You? You're Doing It Wrong

Seen a few people over the years go on a "Chase's advice is good, but..." then they prattle on about how once they stopped following Chase's advice to a T, they saw improvements. Or maybe it's someone who's been trying the material, but is seeing no gains.

It's because you're doing it wrong.

And this is coming from a natural who made the same mistake. When I discovered GC, I went full zealotry. Was talking like Chase talked, crafting my texts exactly like he did, etc.

I saw a lot of improvements, like sky-rocket improvements, but I also saw myself failing in areas that I never had trouble with before (moving too fast was probably my biggest problem post-GC; never was an issue in my natural days; I moved at a smooth pace).

The reason why you're not succeeding when you apply advice is because you're

1. Taking it to the extreme

2. Being way too mechanical about it

This might be because we're men, and since we think so categorically, we take something we learn and try to do it all the time. In other cases, with high-IQ guys (low EQ) who are on the Autism spectrum are seeing everything like a video game with exact values/returns (e.g., do this attack, it does this much damage; say this line, it gets this response). Then, when they get negative feedback, they commit the fallacy of false cause - they think the result/effect, however a person responds to you, is due to the premise or action itself.

Let's say you have trouble inviting a chick home, and your idea is to use the escalation ladder. You try it on a chick and it works. After a few "yes"s, she buys into the third "yes," where you ask her home. Cool it works.

Then you try it again, and it falls flat. Okay. You try it five more times, and everytime, the chick doesn't come home with you.

You decide the escalation ladder doesn't work.

False cause.

It might just be because you were fucking boring on the date and the escalation ladder was like hitting a lvl 70 boss with a lvl 1 weapon.

I also see guys trying things randomly and expecting them to work. Like, I've seen some guys i"m coaching open a girl, and she's already open to him, he could just ask her name or how she is. But then, after the open, he delivers a compliment

"So I saw you over here and..."

Then the tension gets too intense and she bows out.

Ah, direct opens don't work!

No, it's because she was already bought in. Why were you opening her TWICE?

I tend to do this myself, especially when playing video games. When I learn a new move or combo, I try my best to pull it off everywhere. What ends up happening is I die a lot or lose a lot of matches, because I'm trying it when it's not useful. I could just be doing simple combos, but I'm over here trying 2-frame combos that look flashy, but do less damage than a simple Bread and Butter combo.

Do what works. At the end of the day, results are the only thing that matter (and if you have fun).

Do you feel pidgeon-held by anything we teach you at GC? Then don't fucking do it. It doesn't make the advice wrong or inaccurate, it just isn't applicable to you anymore. If you saw the way I text, you'd think I had split-personality disorder. One second I'm super stoic and terse, the other text, I'm romantic and sending chicks like 5 kissy faces and sound like a total faggot. Why? Cuz it's congruent with how I am. And it works. Not sure i could ever teach it, though, because it's so adaptive. Would need 10 articles with dozens of examples.

I never text girls with the business-style that Chase recommends. Yet, I do text like Chase texts (I sext him all the time) - I get to the fucking point. Chase doesn't even text like Chase says to text, because life isn't a goddamned video game (jk it is; you're living in the matrix). He texts like a normal human being, except better.
'
is that complicated? That's because you're looking at structure, not essence.

It's like cheating off someone's math homework. Sure, you got a good grade, but if you're studying the test afterwards to prep for future material, you're gonna fail the next test, because you don't understand WHY it's working. Same with the escalation ladder or opening - understand WHY it works instead of whipping it out when-the-fuck-ever.

I've actually had a conversation with Chase about this and we both talked about how hard it is to explain things in articles sometimes, because once you say something, someone thinks "I HAVE TO DO IT EXACTLY LIKE THIS." Not sure if it's a guy thing, or a high-IQ thing. Either way, it's too mechanical. Stop it.

If you're new and afraid to say whatever comes to mind (which is the best strategy to learn), sure, try to do it exactly the way Chase does it. But if you have the balls, say whatever comes to mind, then after you see the result, learn why what happened, happened, THEN see how Chase's advice or some other writer's advice can maybe fix the problem.

Think. Reflect. Flow.

Stop being so dogmatic. We're teachers, not priests. There's no rules here, except for get your dick in the pussy and have fun.

But, when we do give you advice, fucking listen. So many guys on this forum are posting for advice, then LISTEN TO NONE OF IT. It's a good thing I can't swing around a ban-hammer...it's like some of you don't even want to learn.

This is the best natural game site on the planet. Trust me (Donald Trump voice).

Okay rant over...

Might turn this into an article.

Love you guys,

Hector

Specific content of dating advice aside, I think that there are three big problems with GC (and almost all dating advice):

1. It doesn't do a very good job of emphasizing that everything is contextual: This is why we see so many guys (including myself in my earlier days) being mechanical, doing "checklists" of actions and hoping to get a certain result. For example, I used to try to follow Chase's outline for how to run an interaction almost step by step Rapartee>Rapport>Chase Frame>Invite Home>Sex. But if a girl threw a curvball like say...her friend is there, or she was ready to go home with me before I Chase Framed her, I would lose my shit and not know what to do. Why does this happen? Well, I think part of it has to do with the guy reading the advice. He probably has some issues connecting with people like a normal human being. But the other part is the way the advice is written. It's always written in such a way that it seems like "what I (as the writer and teacher) say is law and it should be done in all situations". It's not clear that anything that's written is supposed to be a guideline at best. Not hard rule that is true in every situation. I think it's the writer's jobs to make it more clear to guys that their articles and advice can only guide us, they can't actually hold our dicks while we piss. We need to think for ourselves and adapt to our situations. I get that this should be obvious and is implied, not just in dating, but in any type of advice you might give. But given the amount of people who don't understand this, it's clear that it needs to be pointed out anyways.

2. There are some concepts which can't be tested for validity:

For example, one of the classics: Lovers VS Providers. I used to have this problem all the time:

I go on a date. The girl is into me. I makeout with her or more, but she doesn't let me fuck her. So I assume "I didn't qualify myself as a lover". Obviously I'm BF material.

The problem with this assumption is that I can say that every time girl doesn't let me fuck her on a first date. It's a paradigm with a foundational assumption which can't be challenged without discarding the paradigm or framework as a whole. So in other words, there's no thing that can happen on a date or empirical experience which can prove or disprove the concept. I either choose to believe its true based off faith alone and base all the rest of my dating life off of it, or I don't. So for example, I can walk up to 100 girls and direct open them. When I do that, I'll have a pretty good idea of weather or not "direct openers" are a good strategy for me. I don't have to rely on faith there. I just tested it for myself. There's no similar empirical test we can do for "lovers vs providers". Because you can always revert to the assumption that you're "not enough of a lover" or "not have good enough game" for that particular girl. I hope this makes sense.

Same thing with "moving faster". I can't know for sure if the concept of "moving faster" is bullshit, and if the girl I'm talking to really doesn't sleep with guys on a first or second date, or if the problem is that my game just isn't good enough to get her to submit to me.

3. All the advice here is mostly anecdotal. There's not very much research. And even when there is research, its often interpreted by the author himself (who is not very qualified to do this). This means even the writers themselves may be attributing false cause/effect: This is pretty straightforward. You or Chase or any other writer might think that x is the reason why you got the girl. Because every time you do x, girls respond positively. But the truth is, girls might respond positively when you do x because it showcases y quality which only you have. It's not applicable to every guy.So you end up writing advice which is only applicable to a very small subset of dudes and generalizing it to everyone. Or, maybe x is an honest signal that you have y quality, but its also inefficient. There are better ways to signal y.

A good example of this is in mainstream media is the misconception that women like assholes. While that's not necessarily false, we both know that they don't like the asshole behavior itself. They like certain traits that assholes have (e.g. assertiveness, confidence etc.). And If you can signal just those traits, without all the misogyny and negativity an asshole brings to the table, you'll be far more attractive.

I think along with context is the fact that every interaction with you and a girl is unique. It's unique to your personality and hers and how you you two connect. I have a friend who is very good with girls, he doesn't read blog posts or any dating advice. He just has that type of personality that draws you into him, and hes very relatable and empathetic and knows how to connect and flirt with girls. He thinks its dumb that I try to fuck girls on the first date all the time. And sometimes i do agree, but also, I am not him. I don't have his personality. He sexts girls on the regular and texts a lot, but it works for him. Even with all my improvements from reading girlschase, I will probably never be on his level. Some guys have an "it" factor that is hard to replicate. Sort of like when you are a basketball player, and you have what it takes to become an all-time great. Sure it has to do with your work ethic, but also with your chemical make-up, your natural gifts, etc.

Learning from this community and applying it on dates has definitely shown me more about myself. I think the biggest improvements for me have been moving faster, learning how to communicate better with women (deep diving), texting and improving fundamentals. I don't think my core self has really changed that much though even with the success I've had. I've just grown some more balls, become bolder, and go after what I want now.

I've been using Girls Chase and on the Girls Chase forums for a year, and I am still a kissless virgin. I am not a natural. I had no game before using Girls Chase. In fact, I didn't ask out a girl until a month before I found Girls Chase. After finding GC, I got numbers, but no dates. Every time I get a girl's number, it never becomes a date. Because of this, I've lost all motivation to go cold approach, because I know it will not end with me taking her on a date.

I've used Chase's text method before, and it doesn't work. At least for me anyways. I was never good at texting. I read his "Fixing A Poor Tactical Focus" article recently to get advice on how to overcome this, and he said to focus on the fundamentals because they are poor. I never been noticed by girls, and I was always shy in middle school and high school, and made asking a girl out a much bigger event than I should. Which is why I never asked anyone out until college. I also don't know if women are attracted to me, romantically or sexually. I don't know how to find out.

I read your post on what are you adding, Hector, and it helped me at that time. I have Autism and was diagnosed when I was a little kid. I had to figure everything out on my own. My parents were no help when it came to girls, and I never left the house. Even now, I don't really leave the house by myself because I don't know if I have friends outside of college. Nobody asks me to go anywhere with them. I need to change a lot of things for 2017.

It is all relative.... This is just an opinion of one guy:

Personally I see some issues with GC advises. Don't make me wrong, they work great, BUT, usually the guy has to (1) be experienced or (2) he has to have some luck, meaning the girls is looking for a guy at the moment he meets her...

(1) Experience usually takes long time, I am estimating 3+ years for average guys
(2) Luck. No explanation needed, anybody with luck can get laid if he is up to it, she is simply open and grabs a guy that at the moment appears sexy and/or horny. If she is up to it, she can suck your dick within 10 minutes of meeting you, if not less...

On the other hand, if you meet high quality girls, most of the time they will not sleep with you. There are great vibes, she show great interest, yet at the moment you start moving things forward she will put her breaks on. You hit a road block with moving faster. And, if she doesn't put her breaks on, most likely she is not a quality girl, she simply sleeps around with bunch of other guys...

We also have to look at age groups. Younger girls, say 18-22 behave differently as they are not that experienced with guys than older girls, say 28-32. A girl in the first group might be more open to sex and more naive, or perhaps more desiring sex experience, while a girl in older group knows right away what you are after as she (most likely) already have some experience. The second you mention you want to take her to your or her place, she already knows what is going on. Which is good because if she goes with you you already won 90%, she is simply open to it... but at the same time, it might be bad because she may reject you for longer term relationships, if that is what she is looking for... Not all girls are looking for one night stand, quality girl are very careful who they sleep with, and most do have some rule(s), such as "never sleep with a guy till X date"...

So what does average guy, assuming that he has good fundamentals and he is looking for long(er) term relationship do when he meets a girl he really likes? He screws himself by pushing things forward, by being overly sexy and by pushing things for sex too soon... In real life, he would win the girl over if he has just approach her with more standard dating attitude. If she likes him, she will go for another and another dates with him... But he screwed up, so now he has to look for another girl and keep repeating the same things over and over, always blaming himself that he doesn't have the skills he needs... He could be wasting years of progress...

-----------------

Another big issue I see is, that guys are simply spending too much time learning "how to get girls". Some get well after couple weeks, others learn and study the material for year(s) and they still can't get a girl... GC site is great, it has all the possible details. But is so much knowledge needed in order to get quality girl?

I believe not. You don't have to be smooth, you don't have to be that sexy, you don't have to be well spoken, you don't have to be that muscular, you don't have to have great social group, you don't have to be that dominant or that confident, you don't have to be entertaining and too talkative - yet you can still get a great girl...

How so? The problem as I see it is in the whole philosophy "get the girl". Become better to "get the girl", become smoother to "get the girl", become more sexy to "get the girl", become more dominant to "get the girl", have this or that frame to "get the girl", pretend that you don't really care much about her because you have lots of other girls around to "get her" and so on...

Does it work? Yes, after the guy learns lots of stuff he will eventually be able to "get the girl"... The problem is that you are working too hard. You are over-investing, you are trying to make some super-seducer out of you, you are trying to be too good...

...girls are smart, they have nose for it... They feel that you are doing too much, they know that you are trying to be way better than you really are, they know right away that you are over-compensating for something, they know that you are actually trying to prove yourself to them by trying to be too good, too smooth, too sexy... Trust me, most girls know right away, they will test you and if you fake it you will likely fail... You will then believe that you have to work even harder because nothing is working for you, but the real problem is that you are already over-investing, you are already doing too much - while she usually doesn't really do anything, or much less than you...

But what if there is another way, in stead of you trying to "get the girl", let the girl "get you"...??? You simply stop learning all the stuff about girls and in stead you focus your time and energy to become The Man. After all, all girls and women want is MAN... Let's repeat it one more time: They don't want immature boy, they want mature MAN...

You simply stop worrying too much about girls (again, don't make me wrong, some knowledge about all the relationship dynamics is very useful) and in stead you start working on becoming a man... Having good fundamentals, taking decent care of yourself, getting good education and good job, being goal oriented, have life to live, have plan for good life, have hobbies and decent friends, taking care of your finances, being positive and open minded, being friendly, do some activities in stead of sitting home all the time and trying to figure out how to "get her"...

You need to learn that you as a MAN are The Price in that (potential) relationship. You, not she is The Price. You can be a great provider and she can stay home with babies - just know that you are The Price, not her... You feed the whole family, you allow her to stay home, you are the one who is providing and taking care for multiple people... You are The Price, and never the other way... If you really understand it, there is just no way that you will try to make her like you in any way... You will stop trying to impress her with smoothness, sexiness or dominance, you will stop worrying whether she likes you or not, you will stop seducing her... In stead you will start thinking if terms "Is she good enough for me, does she worth my time and effort, is she really that good that I should invest my time in her?". And if you use your logic, your own mind, you will find out that many girls that you really really like - are not really that good for you... You will find yourself rejecting girls because they don't meet Your standard, and not the other way...

That is how you should think... See the huge difference? Most guys here have default mind set "I am not good enough therefore I have to improve a lot in order to get that girl. I have to do XYZ and only then I will 'get her' ". The correct(ed) mind set is "Is she good enough for me? Is she investing enough in order for me to start investing into her?".

I'm telling you, if you do this many great girls will show great interest in you. They will give you their number without you asking for it, they will invite you to their place, they will ask you to have drink with them, many will drop their BF so they can be with you... There is just no other way, all girls and women want is a man. If they see a guy who loves his life and who knows where is he going to, they will want to be part of it...

And if she rejects you, well, she rejects you. She has every right to reject you, she doesn't have to like you no matter what you think of yourself... Move on, life goes on, suck it up...

The problem these days is, that we don't have any manly examples, most guys are simply pussies, they have too much feminine energy, they are overly sensitive and too sociable, they are too weak... they don't have any enemies, they don't have any spine, they have nothing to stand for or go for in life... Who wants to be with such guy? Any reasonable girl will not, that is why most guys need some sort of tricks to "get them" in the bed...


Just one opinion, out of many...

Girlschase opened my eyes to a lot of things I would've missed had I not seen the site. It helps me a lot with life in general, to be honest.

Here's my biggest issue. You have to think for yourself. You have to trust yourself. You need to go out, and be you and not some GC drone pumping out an opener on repeat. That's the biggest problem I see, aside from guys not listening, which gets on my nerves.

It's supposed to be a toolkit, not mind control. You use the concepts on the site to give you something to go off of when you're out. You don't just spit the technique and hope for the best (of course of you're new that's a good way to get off the ground) eventually you internalize it and see where it's best applicable in the specific situation.

I guarantee, and I can say this from experience, a really good natural will do this stuff automatically. I had a friend that did it automatically, and I was pretty appalled to see it. This shit already makes sense to someone who is naturally social or good with girls.

I can also say with confidence there's at least 1 "tactic" from GC that you were already doing subconsciously. I know there were a few for me.

Once you're off the ground, you're not gonna be looking at every post to tie into your game. As you get better you're gonna start mix and matching stuff from the site and stuff you learn. No two people can game the same.

As for the whole move fast thing, that's saying to move things forward because you're a man. It's part of what separates us from women - decision making. Have you ever overheard two girls deciding what to eat? It's retarded. They don't decide for at least 10 minutes. You have to move things forward but you don't move the same speed with every girl.

Jake

Wow. What a post.

It's true. Principles > Technique. Understand the 'why' behind every technique, and you can make 10 techniques from it.

Nick

Bboy100 said:

Specific content of dating advice aside, I think that there are three big problems with GC (and almost all dating advice):

Well, I think part of it has to do with the guy reading the advice. He probably has some issues connecting with people like a normal human being....

...But the other part is the way the advice is written. It's always written in such a way that it seems like "what I (as the writer and teacher) say is law and it should be done in all situations."

Click to expand...

If we spend too much time contextualizing and giving exceptions for our advice, we will seem less sure of ourselves. If you see, the most popular products/services are when the guy is acting like he's spitting out magic. It's sales. People have less confidence in someone who explains themselves; this is one of the biggest reasons why guys who start out PUA have trouble catching up to naturals, they're too engrossed in the intellectuality of it all.

As part of the GC team, who is selling a product, I take full responsibility for what I put out. If we fail to explain something properly, that's our fault. If your'e confused, we need to do a better job of explaining it.

But as a teacher, who studies how people learn, it really is your responsibility to either ask questions and think for yourself when we say something with authority. That it took you so long to question context is, well, your fault. Trust me, Chase and I know that everything is context dependent, but like I said, if we add in apologies (in the scholastic sense) to everything we write, which we actually do quite frequently, people will lose faith in our authority. Also, it would mean we're writing 50 page essays for every article - that's simply not efficient.

That's why religion is so popular and science and philosophy aren't even close in terms of influence. It utilizes the power of metaphor, but speaks authoritatively - whether their content is true or not is irrelevant.

So yeah, it's a balance between influence and accuracy. We always strive to do better, but as a student, if you want results, you gotta think for yourself. I'll keep your criticisms in mind, however.

2. There are some concepts which can't be tested for validity:

For example, one of the classics: Lovers VS Providers. I used to have this problem all the time:

I go on a date. The girl is into me. I makeout with her or more, but she doesn't let me fuck her. So I assume "I didn't qualify myself as a lover". Obviously I'm BF material.

The problem with this assumption is that I can say that every time girl doesn't let me fuck her on a first date. It's a paradigm with a foundational assumption which can't be challenged without discarding the paradigm or framework as a whole. So in other words, there's no thing that can happen on a date or empirical experience which can prove or disprove the concept. I either choose to believe its true based off faith alone and base all the rest of my dating life off of it, or I don't. So for example, I can walk up to 100 girls and direct open them. When I do that, I'll have a pretty good idea of weather or not "direct openers" are a good strategy for me. I don't have to rely on faith there. I just tested it for myself. There's no similar empirical test we can do for "lovers vs providers". Because you can always revert to the assumption that you're "not enough of a lover" or "not have good enough game" for that particular girl. I hope this makes sense.

Click to expand...

I've had girl literally explain the lover/provider concept to me. Or I've been talking to chicks and when they describe some guy, like the long-haired, tattooed loser who works the boat dock, they says "yeah, that's just a guy you fuck, but not date."

Ask some girls about it and see what they say.

As for discovering direct causation, it's pretty tricky. Lots of lurking variables. You never know whether a girl liked you because of something you did, or in spite of it.

I'd say you either need more reference points or more discriminatory.

Like moving fast, you're still seeing it too mechanical. I address this in my article on not rushing, https://www.girlschase.com/content/move- ... t-rush-her

A lot of guys speed-run through seductions when they hear they need to move fast, and they will often stumble, becuse they rushed. That's good. It's always better to move too fast at first, because then you'll find out that women can fuck you whenever.

"She doesn't really sleep with guys on a first or second date."

Maybe not with most guys, but there is that guy out that can get her on the first date. There are no rules to life, even if she thinks it's a hard rule of hers. You really think homegirl won't put out for Brad Pitt on a first date? "Well, he's famous" isn't an excuse, either. He didn't randomly get famous. He earned it, so that's part of his fundamentals. But you can totally outcompete a celebrity with good game and fundamentals - celebrity is just insane social proof, that's all.

So basically yeah, girls have no rules, because there are none. Anything can happen.

As for why moving fast is good, I also address it in that article i linked. Because time is irrelevant, you should sleep with her quickly. Like, why wouldn't you? If she wants to fuck you, she wants to fuck you. Not giving it to her just disappoints her.

If you can't, then you can't, but it should be a turn-off. That's the attitude you need. She doesn't want to fuck? Cool, we're on different pages (unless of course you like her company so much you don't care, which is rare in my experience). That's one big key to persistent - getting slowly disappointed by her lack of putting out.

3. All the advice here is mostly anecdotal. There's not very much research. And even when there is research, its often interpreted by the author himself (who is not very qualified to do this). This means even the writers themselves may be attributing false cause/effect: This is pretty straightforward. You or Chase or any other writer might think that x is the reason why you got the girl. Because every time you do x, girls respond positively. But the truth is, girls might respond positively when you do x because it showcases y quality which only you have. It's not applicable to every guy.So you end up writing advice which is only applicable to a very small subset of dudes and generalizing it to everyone. Or, maybe x is an honest signal that you have y quality, but its also inefficient. There are better ways to signal y.

Click to expand...

Chase's new product has over 800 scientific citations, and pretty much everything he found agreed with everything we teach here on GC. So that should squash this contention.

As an aside, who is qualified to interpret social science results? The scientists themselves? Never met a sociology or psychology professor in my life who had anything close to good game. And who's to say their information is even accurate? I don't care how good your P-value is, I'll take a natural's opinion over it all. Surveys and questionnaires might be inaccurate. Participants may change their behavior, knowing it's being recorded. I mean, do we need Ph.D's to write material? Lol. And this perspective means that pretty much everything before the science boom of the modern era, no one knew anything. That seems suspect to me. All Casanova had was anecdote, ain't no social science papers being published in 1600's Italy, but he was still smashing royalty. Keep your science, I'll take the pussy

A good example of this is in mainstream media is the misconception that women like assholes. While that's not necessarily false, we both know that they don't like the asshole behavior itself. They like certain traits that assholes have (e.g. assertiveness, confidence etc.). And If you can signal just those traits, without all the misogyny and negativity an asshole brings to the table, you'll be far more attractive.

Click to expand...

.

Uh, they definitely do the like the asshole behavior itself, too. Women like dominance. Dominance is dominance at the end of the day. that's pretty much all value is - does he get what he wants? Of course there's attainability and that's where the problem of asshole behavior comes in. Also, not sure what your defintion of an asshole is.

https://www.girlschase.com/content/24-wa ... dick-girls

24 examples of how being a dick works. Now, it can go even farther. I've straight up verbally destroyed a woman and she'll just sit there and laugh sometimes even when I'm being genuinely mean cuz she's being a cunt and it just turns her on.

Here, watch Gordon Ramsey make some bitches wet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVKWCK2aAx8

Those two blondes who are getting "mad" at him? They'd suck his cock the moment they were alone in a room together. Asshole behavior without qualification, turning bitches on.

I'm not saying you're wrong, im just saying maybe your perspective is a bit too idealistic.

Ken said:

I've been using Girls Chase and on the Girls Chase forums for a year, and I am still a kissless virgin. I am not a natural. I had no game before using Girls Chase. In fact, I didn't ask out a girl until a month before I found Girls Chase. After finding GC, I got numbers, but no dates. Every time I get a girl's number, it never becomes a date. Because of this, I've lost all motivation to go cold approach, because I know it will not end with me taking her on a date.

I've used Chase's text method before, and it doesn't work. At least for me anyways. I was never good at texting. I read his "Fixing A Poor Tactical Focus" article recently to get advice on how to overcome this, and he said to focus on the fundamentals because they are poor. I never been noticed by girls, and I was always shy in middle school and high school, and made asking a girl out a much bigger event than I should. Which is why I never asked anyone out until college. I also don't know if women are attracted to me, romantically or sexually. I don't know how to find out.

I read your post on what are you adding, Hector, and it helped me at that time. I have Autism and was diagnosed when I was a little kid. I had to figure everything out on my own. My parents were no help when it came to girls, and I never left the house. Even now, I don't really leave the house by myself because I don't know if I have friends outside of college. Nobody asks me to go anywhere with them. I need to change a lot of things for 2017.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Autism puts you a bit behind, but if you want some inspiration, go watch some RSD. Tyler (Owen) is Autistic and has fucked hundreds of girls. I even met him in real life and could definitely see the way that he reacts to things that he's autistic, but he's funny and cool, just takes him a second to react to everything, since he's doing equations, instead of "feeling it."

I'll go back on your field reports and see if I can give you any insights into how to think more clearly about gals. As far as I know, autism means you take things literally and have trouble with metaphor or subtlety. Like, you see an argument between two people as who's correct and has the most information, but how most people see it is a war, like who's more emotionally powerful. Maybe the best way to work with your Autism is to really kick your empathy into overdrive and try to understand WHY people do things.

Don't see it so much as an equation, but a story, a puzzle that is moved not by numbers, but by flow.

This may in time, open up those pathways in your brain that are maybe blocked or rerouted by your situation. I personally believe we can change anything in existence with thought, especially our mind itself, but that's probably a bit woo-ey weird for me to get into.Though I do believe that neuroscience talks about "neural-plasticity." Worth a try, though, to see if you can really change your thinking more towards feeling/intuition.

If that route doesn't sound appealing, then you're going to have to embrace your mechanical thinking and just work harder than everyone else. I wouldn't say I'm autistic/asperger-y, but until college, I was pretty much the guy who took everything too seriously/analytically. Not sure if this example will resonate with you, but I think it encapsulates what I'm trying to convey here.

In a high school class, this kid was spinning a quarter on his desk. I kept staring at it and then was thinking out loud, trying to figure out exactly what was happening, like the physics of it. Not even a few seconds into my thinking, the kid said "dude, just appreciate it; you don't have to figure out why it's happening."

For guys like us, that shit's annoying right? LIke, how can I appreciate it without understanding it? Without htis mentality, dont' think I'd be where I am, but at the same time, there is some validity to his statement. Life is mysterious and there's a lot of shit that may not make conceptual sense, but it's what's happening and what works. So you have a choice, either learn how the spinning works (learn how girls work really mechanically) or learn to feel and just appreciate things and learn intuitively. I'd say do both.

Does that help/clarify things? If not, I'd love to keep working on this with ya, because I think a lot of people who don't do well in seduction might actually have Asperger's/Autism. Understanding this demographic is pretty important.

Wow nice post.

Hector, you're the boss.

I'd still like to add a few comments.

Lover vs Provider dichotomy: field tested many, many times over, for having been at the two extreme ends of the spectrum... And also for watching my exes struggling from one extreme to the other.

Mechanical first, calibration later. You need reference points first before you can calibrate to your target. In the meantime you have no other choice than applying things mechanically for start.

Seduction does not equate one night stand. It can be used to develop relationships as well. Except that you start on a much better ground than with the traditional BF route.

What works for you. It is a lot of different things in GCs articles. You *don't* need to apply *all* of them to succeed. See what works for you and adapt it to your needs. There are a few very important principles, however, that you need to get right.

Move fast or not move fast. So many examples where I lost the girl because I assumed there would be a second date. And so many similar examples on the boards. All in all, faster is better. If she's into you, you will wow her. First date sex is a definite skill to have. Once you have it, then you can learn to get second dates more consistently and calibrate.

To me, the most important thing is to have an end-to-end process. So many new guys on the boards go on a first date without a plan. The end to end process is a clear plan from the moment you meet the girl, to the moment you take her to bed. Getting numbers, or getting dates, is not the goal in itself. Have a plan in advance.

Congruence, consistency. You're consistently the same man throughout all your frames. Congruence is the best way to pass all her shit tests. Remember she tests you to know if you're the real deal. Become your frame and own it, be congruent.

Cheers guys,
Seppuku

But as a teacher, who studies how people learn, it really is your responsibility to either ask questions and think for yourself when we say something with authority. That it took you so long to question context is, well, your fault. Trust me, Chase and I know that everything is context dependent, but like I said, if we add in apologies (in the scholastic sense) to everything we write, which we actually do quite frequently, people will lose faith in our authority. Also, it would mean we're writing 50 page essays for every article - that's simply not efficient.

Click to expand...

First, I want to make it clear that I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the writers or like its your fault that I fucked up in certain situations. I take full responsibility for my own dating life. Also, without GC I probably would have made 1000 other mistakes which the stuff you guys wrote helped me avoid. So overall, there's still probably a net gain in my results.

Once you throw a sales component into it, then perhaps you're right about this. Maybe its a necessary evil. I don't know for sure since I have no experience in marketing, therefore I'm in no position to critique you.

Other than that...

I do have a substantive response to most everything you said. But it would be pretty long and it will take a while for me to type up. If you're interested in having this debate, I would be more than happy to do so. I would be curious to hear what you have to say. Let me know if I should continue.

Gordon Ramsay is a fucking boss.

Great post, Hector. This would make a hell of an article to boot. It's interesting to think about the line between producer responsibility and customer application, not just here but also on applying hot water to one's lap or one's internet service not working or several other cases of faulty product.

-----------------------------------

On Autism: If no one ever told me RSDTyler had autism, I never would have guessed. Dunno how it was meeting him but I'd imagine unless you knew, you might think he was just a little odd at most. Sometimes drawing attention to a disability or condition yourself draws more attention than the disability or condition itself does on it's own. Autism is obviously a broad spectrum, and comparing any two individuals - autistic or not - is difficult to do in fairness; but the first step to overcoming any problem is from a perspective of "I can" and refusing to abandon that perspective. I think it would be awesome if the dating industry pioneered new insight into the autistic spectrum, since modern psychiatry still has a very basic understanding of how it works.

Bboy100 said:

But as a teacher, who studies how people learn, it really is your responsibility to either ask questions and think for yourself when we say something with authority. That it took you so long to question context is, well, your fault. Trust me, Chase and I know that everything is context dependent, but like I said, if we add in apologies (in the scholastic sense) to everything we write, which we actually do quite frequently, people will lose faith in our authority. Also, it would mean we're writing 50 page essays for every article - that's simply not efficient.

Click to expand...

First, I want to make it clear that I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the writers or like its your fault that I fucked up in certain situations. I take full responsibility for my own dating life. Also, without GC I probably would have made 1000 other mistakes which the stuff you guys wrote helped me avoid. So overall, there's still probably a net gain in my results.

Once you throw a sales component into it, then perhaps you're right about this. Maybe its a necessary evil. I don't know for sure since I have no experience in marketing, therefore I'm in no position to critique you.

Other than that...

I do have a substantive response to most everything you said. But it would be pretty long and it will take a while for me to type up. If you're interested in having this debate, I would be more than happy to do so. I would be curious to hear what you have to say. Let me know if I should continue.

Click to expand...

Lol, necessary evil. I used to think that way too about marketing and sales, until my living began to depend upon it. Once you see it from that side, it becomes another fun dynamic. It's rhetoric at the end of the day. You can know everything about Supersymmetry, but I doubt if you start trying to give lectures in the middle of a music festival, no one is gonna listen to you. Or theology lessons at a gay pride parade. It's not evil ,it's seduction.

I wouldn't have given you the response I wrote out if I didn't expect an equal response. Just make sure you think through everything thoroughly

hector

Very interesting post, and at the same time challenging, because it pushes us to reexamine the beliefs and rules we consider to be true.

I'm not going to write in general about this whole idea so bear with me. Also I may oversimply things just to get the idea across more easily.

Intro

First of all, let's start with something very mechanical and supposedly exact like engineering. I'm an engineering student myself. Do you think engineers know exactly what they are doing? The answer is pretty much NO! Civil engineers don't know if the amount of steel and cement they calculated is enough for the building not to collapse at some point, so they add a safety margin by multiplying the amount obtained by a safety factor, 5 for example, like just to be sure. Telecom engineers can't guess if the antenna that they will place at this location will be able to provide a good enough signal at a certain point. They just try to run a simulation and then put the antenna and basically just try it.
But that's not as worrisome as it may seem, because the way engineering works, is very close to how GC works (and pretty much a lot of social sciences and some fields of hard sciences), and that is through models.

What is a model you ask. Here's the thing. More often than not, reality is way too complicated for us humans to describe in simple terms using simple rules. Think about gravitation, how simple it was during Newton's era, until Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and added a lot of more complexity to it, but yet we still haven't cracked down the whole thing. Since nature is very complex, we try to make sense of it in our own way, mostly by making approximations and assumptions about how some things work. By doing that, we obtain a set of rules that constitute how we see a certain phenomenon, therefore creating our model.

So by definition, a model is an approximation of the truth, but certainly not the whole thing, and it should keep evolving when we find situations we can't explain with it, or to which we predict a different outcome than the real one.


Now Back to GC

In order to understand female behavior and how to be able to seduce women, we have a model that tells us how things "work". This model is largely based on ideas that emerge from evolutionary psychology. But like I said before, a model is not perfect and there will always be situations that the model can't successfully handle. The lover/provider thing is a fundamental part of the model used here at GC, but like Bboy said, it's not something that can be proven or disproven.

Far be it from me to judge the advice given here, but all I can say is (and even though this is just anecdotal) that GC helped me a lot, especially in the inner game department. I didn't use to think that women are sexual or want to get laid as much as men, or that it is possible to talk to a woman you just met and bang her hours if not minutes later. But when I opened my mind to the idea I started to see it everywhere I look.

The essence of thr story is that there are certainly things on GC that are not perfectly true, or that only apply in specific situations, but that's only natural. This is why we are here on the board, to ask questions, share experiences and get advice that you don't find in the articles.

Welp, looks like I wrote a whole fucking manifesto! So feel free to pick and choose what you want to respond to lol.

The first thing I should mention is that as a general theme, I'm not saying that GC's advice doesn't work or that its "bad". It will get you results. BUT...I feel like it's not the most effective. There are other places on the internet which convey the same information in a more clear way, without a lot of the negative mindsets GC's advice cultivates (more on that later!).

I've had girl literally explain the lover/provider concept to me.

Click to expand...

Yep. Same here. I had a conversation with one of my female friends. It was me, her and another guy friend of ours. She literally pointed at me and said "if we weren't good friends, I would fuck you on a first date. But I wouldn't care if I saw you again after that". Then she pointed to the other guy and said "and I would probably take it slow with you because you're the kinda guy I would want a relationship with"

And there are plenty examples of the "lover" throughout romance novels, movies, culture, literature and so forth.

So after thinking about it, I guess I formulated my critique wrong in my OP. It's not that the "lover" archetype doesn't exist. It's that not every girl wants one in her life. Because she also understands that he's not going to be her boyfriend (I use the term "boyfriend" very liberally. I include open, casual relationships). And even if he is, he'll be a shitty one. So she doesn't waste her time with him. Or because years and years of cultural & social programming tell her "having sex on a first date is bad". So despite the fact that she wants to fuck, she won't do it. Or a million other reasons which you’re very familiar with.

This is where it gets murky. Part of the definition of the lover archetype is that he would address any objections she has and take her to bed anyways. And that's exactly the part which is untestable. All we know for sure is that girls are attracted to lovers. But we don't know for sure that he'll always be able to sleep with her. In fact, I would argue there are some cases in which the “provider” or just a regular dude would be more successful than a “lover” because he’s more attainable and he brings other things to the table than just his dick. Which is exactly why I think from a practical standpoint, it can be toxic to look at women and dating like this. And we can't really test any of this empirically for the reasons mentioned in my OP. So all we have is our muddled, subjective, bias experiences to argue for or against it (in terms of weather or not its practically useful to view dating this way).

Also, I don’t know if there are other guys can relate to this, but the way Chase and others on this site phrased the “lover” vs “provider” paradigm can come off as super damaging to the ego. It makes it sound like “women and a select few men are all in on this sexual utopia, and every other guy is a clueless chump”. So I used to get really upset and take it personally when a women didn’t fuck me on a first date. Cause that must mean I’m not a part of this group. Instead, I’m some loser who’s actual personality and identity is of no worth to women. Cause providers are all suckers giving away their resources to women for sex right? As with everything else I’m saying, I don’t think that GC actually means to communicate this, nor that it’s the point they’re trying to make. But it comes off this way. And it’s hard to see things otherwise until you already have some success.

Maybe not with most guys, but there is that guy out that can get her on the first date.

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point. How do you know this for sure? If you fail to get her to put out on a first date, and she's never fucked anyone else on a first date, how do you know that there is someone out there who would be an exception? I’m sure there are plenty of women who literally do not sleep with guys on a first date. And even if they have or will do it again in the future, that doesn’t mean that they’re up for it right now. Women’s mating goals and desires change overtime. Just like guys do.

Also, I’d like to point out that you’re right that time is not important in that there isn’t a specific amount of time that needs to pass before a girl will sleep with you. I’m not saying that you should take her out on three fancy dinners and move slow with her on purpose. In fact, if she's a 22 year old who's just trynna have fun and fuck a lot of guys, this will probably repel her. But it is important in that time does create comfort. And comfort breeds attraction. This has been known and documented in research for a long time. So for the most part, time is still helpful…just not always necessary.

As for why moving fast is good,

Click to expand...

To elaborate on my previous point, I don't disagree that moving fast is good given that she allows you to. I'm just saying that trying to move fast in a clumsy way will cause you to lose a girl who otherwise would have been a sure thing. Your article does a pretty good job of addressing exactly those concerns. So you know what I'm talking about. But it came out literally 7 years after GC launched and promoted its original concept of moving fast ( definitely not your fault. I'm critiquing the website as a whole). It should have literally been the second article after the one on “moving fast” came out. Instead, “moving fast” has been emphasized all throughout the website and beaten into our skulls. And this has only explicitly been explained one time. Seven years later.

Moreover, I believe moving fast is good. Quantifying what moving fast means is bad. Saying "you have to seal the deal within 1-2 dates" creates all kinds of toxic mindsets. And its also wrong. I remember one time, I met this girl. We had a great first date, but I couldn't quite take her home. Then, when I met her for a second date, I was so nervous because I assumed I "didn't move fast enough" that I totally blew it. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Again...I'm sure Chase didn't mean it that way. But that's how some guys will interpret it.

But you can totally outcompete a celebrity with good game and fundamentals

Click to expand...

I have some doubts about this. Mainly because social proof communicates different traits than fundamentals (not saying fundamentals aren't important. Just saying it's different). Also, fame is not just social proof. People are famous for doing something. Therefore, women know about the man’s work. The fact that Brad Pitt is a successful actor also communicates a host of other attractive things about him.

But I'll be charitable and assume that this is hypothetically true. The problem is that realistically, I doubt its possible to get your fundamentals to that point. I haven't once heard of or met a girl who wanted to fuck Brad Pitt her whole life, then some other random dude who didn't know the girl prior to that night came in and outcompeted him. And even if you have, how often does this happen? What percentage of the readers can get their fundamentals to a point where they can compete with or even get close to celebrities? And isn’t there a more efficient way to get laid and have relationships than to become comparable to a celebrity? Fuck man…show me a guy like that so I can emulate him lol. Like, even a video online would do. Cause I can’t even fathom what that would look like.
[/quote]

Chase's new product has over 800 scientific citations, and pretty much everything he found agreed with everything we teach her on GC.

Click to expand...

A lot of the old school pickup stuff which we all know is at least partially or maybe even completely false (e.g. Mystery Method, David DeAngelo etc.) uses "science" and "citations" to back up their claims. For example, they use a lot of David Buss's research. Buss openly stated that they totally misinterpret his research, and that everything they say is wrong. Like, he literally laughs in their faces. Now...I'm not comparing GC to those clowns. GC is not even in the same league as that manipulative bullshit. But conceptually, the problem is the same. Unless Chase hired a credible, well known evolutionary psychologist or something of the like to look over his interpretations of the research, there's probably a large margin of error in how he interpreted it. And don't misunderstand me...I'm not calling Chase stupid or incompetent. His ideas are very insightful. But its clear that even intelligent guys can fuck this up. That's why there's a whole field of science dedicated to this.

Uh, they definitely do the like the asshole behavior itself, too. Women like dominance. Dominance is dominance at the end of the day. that's pretty much all value is - does he get what he wants? Of course there's attainability and that's where the problem of asshole behavior comes in. Also, not sure what your definition of an asshole is.

Click to expand...

I define asshole to mean anything which includes uncalled for rude and/or mean, aggressive behavior. There are times when it’s necessary. But if you’re doing it for no reason, there’s probably a better way.

So, yes and no. They do like the asshole behavior itself in that it can get women attracted & willing to sleep with you. But think about why they like it. Same reasons I outlined before. It communicates that you’re assertive, confident, usually assholes have a lot of social proof, are funny and entertaining. Typically, they’re also labeled as “players” which presents a challenge to women.

But what if you could communicate all those things without being offensive or degrading towards people around you? Results will skyrocketx10 right? Case in point…I’m sure those women would have been 10x more into Ramsey if he managed to be “dominant” without hurting their feelings and their egos.

Can you be assertive without being an asshole? Yes.

Can you have social proof and be popular without being an asshole? Yes.

Can you be fun and entertaining? Yes.

Can you be hard to get? Yes.

You discussed a lot of this in your genuine man series. So I feel like you know what I’m talking about.

Also, here’s Tucker Max (king of assholery) on why being an asshole isn’t a good strategy for most people: http://thematinggrounds.com/women-love-assholes/ Listen to at least the first 12 mins.

And I think all this perfectly sums up one of my main critiques of GC. It teaches material which does technically work. But there are other ways of accomplishing the same things which are more effective, efficient and have less drawbacks.

Also, since we opened this can of worms, what exactly is dominance? It’s one of those words that’s thrown around a lot but is not too well defined. I see two definitions:

1. Unapologetically pursuing what you want with a women, assertively moving the interaction forward, establishing yourself as “the leader” in the particular interaction etc. etc.
If that’s all dominance is, then here’s a counterexample I used in one of my recent posts:

Back in my complete beginner days, I went out with this one girl. Everything I did was “dominant”. I touched her thighs (even when she told me it makes her uncomfortable), I was the one leading the conversation, I tried to kiss her (even when she gave me the cheek 10 minutes ago). And this was in a coffee shop at 7:30 PM LOL. Everything I did there was pretty dominant right? But obviously it wasn’t enough. She was repelled by me. Because I fucked literally everything else up (the poor girl. She probably thought I was mentally handicapped or something. LOL).

2. All of def (1)+everything else women are attracted to. So in other words, a dominant man= an attractive man. The problem with this definition is that it encompasses everything that makes a man attractive. Which gives us no information. Its just a synonym for “sexually attractive male” lol. Its worthless.

My larger point is, any time someone tells me “women only want man who have x”, that’s a red flag. Chase has written plenty of articles on this (and rightfully so). The irony here is that if we say “dominance=attraction” then we are falling pray to this same fallacy. We’re saying “women only want men who are dominant”. That’s barely different in nature to saying “women only want men who are good looking, or rich, or tall”. Women want a variety of traits. No one thing will get you the girl (except fame and/or massive social proof within your niche. But that’s only because those things signal a plethora of other positive traits).

Since I’m writing it all up now, here are some other critiques:

GC promotes a “zero-sum game” (sometimes): So again…this isn’t as prevalent as in most other pickup material. Basically, there are a lot of instances in the way GC describes dating where it seems like either the women wins, or the man wins. It’s rarely a “win-win” interaction. At the same time, the authors say they love women and that they want to give women what they want. This can be super confusing. I’ve recently come to realize how those two things can be synonymous. But that’s only after years of experience. And that’s exactly the problem. Miscommunication between writer and reader

For example, let talk about the concept of LMR (P.S. I think your article on it is different and it really does clearly promote a win-win situation. But every other article on the website does not). It seems based on what’s written in most LMR articles that I as the man “win” by getting her to have sex with me and she “loses” cause her resistance wasn’t enough. Or I as a man failed to get her to “submit” to me. I wasn’t “dominant” enough. See how this seems like some sort of battle? In fact, I distinctly remember Chase writing in one article that “LMR is a battle of attrition”.

In fact, some of it is straight up manipulative. Promoting a strategy of getting a girl so horny that she will have sex with me (something she would not have otherwise done or wanted to do) doesn’t seem like its giving the girl what she wants. Hell…I distinctly remember one girl with whom this strategy DID work. And she regretted sleeping with me the next day.

Moreover, just examine the terminology around used here:
“Approaching”- Sound confrontational

“Opening”- Sounds like you’re at war and you’re “opening fire” or something like that.

“Last minute resistance”- There shouldn’t be “resistance” if you’re on the same team. There’s only resistance if people have opposite goals.

“Dominant”- That means someone is being dominated in some way.

“Women’s Tests”- Again…sounds very confrontational in nature.
I’m not saying the way each of these terms is used directly promotes a “zero sum-game”. Some of them make sense given their context. But the fact that we use this vocabulary and not something else definitely speaks to and enhances the Man vs Women dynamic at play.

Fuck, there was one article which made me cringe. Chase was talking about relationships, and he thinks it would be a good idea to use operant conditioning on your GF. Like she’s a dog or something! WTF!!!
Again…I understand that you guys don’t mean it that way. But that’s not how it comes across to readers who don’t already have experience with this stuff.

Another critique here is that everything is mechanical: Chase has a very specific outline, even a “process” for how to date. Like you’re trying to sell the girl something. The fact of the matter is, dating is about emotionally connecting.

You can’t mechanize it. And I’m not saying that to be idealistic or romantic. I’m saying it from a practical standpoint. There are so many variables…so many things that can happen. So many ways a women can react. Trying to make it mechanical is ridiculous and impossible. Sure, there are some general things that can be said about certain situations. But there are so many possible variables and exceptions, that I don’t think its worth it to learn it this way.

Instead, its much more effective to learn to properly emotionally connect with a women. And to read to and adapt to situations. Now obviously, much of this requires experience which is not something any dating advice can give us. But what could be done is less focus on external actions, and focus more on mindsets and getting our lives together. I’m pretty convinced that 80% of material on a good dating site would be either “inner game” work, or it should be just teaching them how to get their shit together in life in general. For example, none of the advice here teaches us how to be happy. How to improve the quality of our lives. How to deal with certain emotional issues (ok, some of it is. But there should be more focus on this). But all of this is critical to dating success. It's very hard to execute the advice on here if you're always anxious, nervous, depressed or a variety of other negative states of mind. Those things need to be addressed directly.

This also goes back to contextualizing advice. Its much easier to contextualize advice when you have your head and your life straight.

Final Critique: I'm not 100% sure weather or not the relationship advice here actually is toxic, or if I just don't completely understand it yet because of my lack of experience in relationships. But it seems to me like relationships advice on here is almost all manipulative. Goes back to the “man vs women” paradigm I was talking about. All the relationship stuff is about staying in control and about remaining “dominant” over the women. And again…not that it doesn’t work. It sure does. But the quality of the relationship will be marginally lower. Because the relationship is typically based on techniques, mental games, tactics. Not on true, genuine vulnerability and finding a good match. Again though...not very qualified to give this critique cause I haven't tried much of it yet.

The Bottom Line: Ultimately, I think GirlsChase works, and its great. After thinking about it a little more, I may have been to harsh with my critique in my OP. The biggest problem is that the way the material is presented creates some misinterpretations and lots of negative side effects. Especially in some of the mindsets it unintentionally creates. So the information most guys get out of the articles is very different from what you mean to tell them.

Anatman said:

If you saw the way I text, you'd think I had split-personality disorder. One second I'm super stoic and terse, the other text, I'm romantic and sending chicks like 5 kissy faces and sound like a total faggot.

Click to expand...

Can we see some screenshots of this? lol (semi-serious)

Bboy100,

Bboy100 said:

material is presented creates some misinterpretations and lots of negative side effects. Especially in some of the mindsets it unintentionally creates. So the information most guys get out of the articles is very different from what you mean to tell them.

Click to expand...

Well..... you gotta let Chase know. Is it the implication? or misinterpretations of the buyer due to words? or the words itself is misrepresented?

You gotta let Chase know.

Zac

The whole seduction business should be put into a perspective. First of all, GC is not the only site with knowledge. It may seem to many readers that GC has discovered some secrets or ways that nobody else is unaware of, at least that is my impression. That is quite incorrect, there are other sites describing the same things in different words, and most of the things that is GC describing were already written years before Chase even posted first article. GC site is quite elaborated, well written with great and unique style, and the overall collection of knowledge is definitely respectable... Yet again, GC is not the original source, some of the stuff may have been re-discovered or upgraded but most of it was already known in seduction/PUA community for longer time. Don't believe me, google it yourself, you will find many similar articles going back to 2000...

With that being said, the described things are all useful yet rather relative to each person. For example, a guy who already has great social skills will not benefit from e.g. deep diving, a guy who is already muscular and athletic winner doesn't really have to learn much about winner attitude/effect, a guy who is in management position will not benefit much from being leading, dominant, high status man and so forth...

So if we take an average guy who is not successful with girls, there are some things that he should be focusing more, and some things he is just wasting his time on because they are less important. I see many guys here that are simply overwhelmed with the knowledge, it is too much info, too many details, too much work to do, too many fancy (yet not important) stuff... Many guys get lost easily studying seduction, they study for months and years and they are still not successful...

It shouldn't be that way, it should be kept easy and simple so EACH GUY SHOULD BENEFIT AND SEE THE RESULTS WITHIN WEEKS, NOT YEARS....

===================

Here are couple things that an average guy will benefit from, they are solid and many times verified in the field by numerous guys. My personal believe is that if you do those you will increase your seduction skills from today's 10% to 80% in 8-12 weeks... Again, you don't really need 100%, all you need is 60-70% in order to be successful... These will cover 80% of what you need:

1. Know that seduction is simple and easy. Believe that it is easy, know that there are no secrets. Make it simple and easy on you, don't fall for learning ten thousands of details and hundreds of different theories, you don't need these to get laid. Cut all the crap and focus on important things only, you will benefit immediately. Stop over-analyzing, stop looking for perfections, avoid falling into the trap of being "great seducer", stop being mysterious... It's all non-sense, cut the crap off...

2. Focus on fundamentals. Take care of yourself. Put nice clothes on, keep yourself clean and neat, comb your hair... Learn some basic body language, e.g. stand up straight yet relaxed, have firm hand shake, look firmly into people's (especially girl's) eyes... Relax, meditate couple minutes every day... Keep yourself healthy, eat healthier diet, start exercising, even little is better than nothing, lose weight if you are fat... You don't have to be a body builder nor you have to be ripped to be more attractive. It is nice but you don't need it at all. You don't have to lift 300 pounds to be masculine or be a martial art champion (though you should, LOL)... Be simple, be easy, use minimal effort... Did I say focus on sexy walks, talks, smiles and looks? Did I say focus on sexy frames, chasing frames and other frames? I didn't. CUT THAT CRAP OUT, you don't need it at all, it's BS. You are a guy and if you behave like a guy you are already as sexy as you need to be...

3. Focus on being positive and open minded. Go out and explore, talk to different people, even superficial topics and just couple of words here and there are good enough. You don't need to be the best conversationalist in order to get a great girl, simply cut all the advanced crap out... Think simple, think easy, socialize even superficially... Think Logic: When other people see you talking to others, they simply think you are social. They don't care whether your conversations are deep and thoughtful, as long as you are talking you are social... If you sit home and don't talk to anyone, well, everybody knows you are not social at all, no matter how great your conversational skills are... So cut that crap out, keep it simple...

4. Abundance Mentality. Focus on more girls, never focus on one girl only... You have to, there is no other way. If you place all of your focus on one girl only, SHE WILL SMELL THE NEEDINESS AND DESPERATION AND SHE WILL REJECT YOU. You need to talk to more girls. Think Number Game, it is all about numbers, it is all about QUANTITY (while 2 and 3 above are about QUALITY). If you have only one girl in your focus, chances are very high that she will reject you. It is almost impossible to get one girl only if she is the only one on your mind, unless she is also needy and desperate you will not ended up with her... What to talk about? It doesn't matter. Say stupid things, say normal things, don't try to be smart or appropriate, just say what comes to your mind... Say Hi and smile... Ask about this or that. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER because if she likes you SHE WILL start talking back to you and she will make the conversation VERY EASY. So easy that you will not believe it... Maybe not all the girls, but some will offer you their numbers or they will express their interest in you - without you asking for it. If not, well, simply ask for it. You can't get wrong by asking for a number or a date, the worst thing that can happen is that she will say "sorry, I have a BF"... So what? You tried, she is taken - Next!

5. Know that you will be rejected. There is no other way. Get used to it, suck it up, have an escape plan - simply focus on more girls... Stop avoiding the rejections, stop fearing the rejections, it is inevitable, there is no way around it... The more girls you talk to, the more girls will flake, and the more girls will reject you. But at the same time, the more girls will like you and more girls will be open to you. Again, think simple Math, think Number Game: If you focus only one girl, the probability of getting that one girls is minimal, very low. 5%. On the other hand, if you focus on more girls, the probability that you will get SOME of them to go for date and/or sleep with you is very high. 95% I will tell you a true secret: If you talk to many girls it is virtually impossible that none of them will not go for a date with you and/or sleep with you. Think about it, IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE unless you are a total douche-bag. Or, unless you don't follow this simple guidance... With this guidance you can be douche-bag, you can be asshole, you can be Nice Guy - but you will ALWAYS get laid.... Think easy, think simple math... Cut all the other crap out!

6. Be patient. Stop pushing for sex within 1-3 dates, it is too much pressure for beginners. In stead, take your time and give her a time. Be interested in her. Stop focusing on being sexy and dominant, stop focusing on deep diving - just be interested in her, about what she likes, who are her friends, what she likes to do.... Simple things... Stop chasing her around, stop texting her every day, stop pushing her around... If she likes you she will stick around for long long time, plus SHE WILL FORGIVE YOU many mistakes and she will help you to advance things forward... Stop thinking in terms of 1-3 dates with one girl, rather learn to think in longer term, more dates with different girls... Think Logic, think Math, if you keep going out with more girls it is simply impossible not to get laid... It is mathematically impossible not to get laid...

7. Want sex. Yes, it may sound simple and silly but I believe that many guys are subconsciously avoiding sex with that girl they like. They do everything else, they rather jerk off to porn, they rather go for romantic love, they rather want great feelings called love... They want and do everything else but sex... But you need to be interested in sex, the physical act itself. So cut the other crap out, cut the porn out, cut the "love" and great feelings out, leave it for later... Again, think simple: If you have patience, if you think long(er) term, if you talk to more girls and if you want sex - it will eventually happen. The Math is there, the Logic is there, the probability of getting laid is very high...


I am telling you, it is impossible not to get laid if you do these simple steps...Simple, efficient, proven many times... What else is there? Lots of other fancy stuff is there but the above will get you from 10% of current success to 80%, and you don't really need the other 20% to get laid...

I think this is a very dense topic, especially for an online forum (versus in person, or even on the phone at least). Having said that, I'd like to write an answer to what Drck said:

Drck said:

Did I say focus on sexy walks, talks, smiles and looks? Did I say focus on sexy frames, chasing frames and other frames? I didn't. CUT THAT CRAP OUT, you don't need it at all, it's BS. You are a guy and if you behave like a guy you are already as sexy as you need to be...

Click to expand...

This is somehow related to what Bboy was arguing, that there shouldn't be a "process", but rather a flow.
I personally think that these little techniques are important not for what they are in themselves, but for the underlying message they convey. How can you teach a man how to be sexy? How can a man "try" to be sexy? To start, he needs guidelines: use this posture and walking technique, use this smile and spice it up with a wink when you say something cool, ect... These are just ways the man can feel "oh, this is what being sexy feels like".
Moreover, your last sentence "if you are a guy.." Sounds dangerously close to "just be yourself and you'll be fine" talk. "Behave like a guy" could be interpreted differently; i had a vety shy guy who tied a girl's shoelaces because she asked him to (in the middle of a street). He could've well said "come on man, you gotta be a man and do what she wants" had I asked.
So principles are important, definitely, but abstract ideas are very hard to internalize. Some of the techniques suggested are helpful in developing these mindsets. After you get there (being sexy for example), sure, you don't need them anymore (although it's always nice to see what other, equally sexy men have in their arsenal), but you do need these tools to get to a threshold of sexiness.
Lots of love.

kalyan said:

I personally think that these little techniques are important not for what they are in themselves, but for the underlying message they convey. How can you teach a man how to be sexy? How can a man "try" to be sexy? To start, he needs guidelines: use this posture and walking technique, use this smile and spice it up with a wink when you say something cool, ect... These are just ways the man can feel "oh, this is what being sexy feels like".

Click to expand...

I totally agree with kalyan on this point. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the Girlschase audience have a lack in this, and I'm one of them. They don't know how to be sexy, what's a good walk or a sexy smile. So we have to learn it all again, understand the principles and internalize them so it becomes natural. I always used to see GC differently than all the other pickup websites I came upon because GC turns you into the sexy man, one that that is attractive and knows what to do with it, rather than learning techniques and saying scripted pickup lines like a robot (like in "The Game").

Chase wrote an article some time ago called "Sex is supposed to be easy". In the article he explains that all you need to have sex is just simple intuition, and that women think that this is something that should be natural for men, rather than learned, but some people need to relearn that, to lay the foundations upon which the natural instincts can start to develop and eventually take over.

But at the same time, we can eventually get too wrapped up in the specifics and not see the bigger picture anymore. But there is nothing the writers can do about it, other than constantly reminding us about it. Each person should put in in the effort to do a reality check every once in a while and re-calibrate his efforts towards the right goal.