Re: Comprehension or editing: Why to Throw Out the 1-to-10 Scale for Rating Wome
Franco, radeng,
I finally got to finish this article. Thanks for your clarifying my confusion!
radeng said:
"Okay, that wasn't it" is the author answering his on questions, "what is going on?"
OK, up this point your answer helped me to understand the original article fully.
radeng said:
And he is simply referencing that he was not just writing field reports on only the girls he was most impressed by. Since he was sleeping with more girls after stopping field reports, it wasn't that he was only writing FRs on girls that were out of his league. It had to be something else.
And from here I got confudsed a bit, since it seems at this point I got a different reading of the original article than you. So now I feel I understand the original article fully - as I'm reviewing it
again this time -, I just find your explanation of it confusing a little. But that's probably a minor detail and we can move on.
Franco said:
I know you mentioned somewhere else that GC's articles don't have "date of publication" stamps on them. They actually used to -- I'm not sure why they disappeared after a re-vamp of the website not too long ago.
That being said, this is definitely one of Chase's older articles. His writing has also improved drastically since then, and these little confusing nuances are rarely seen in his articles anymore.
I see. Thanks!
And the text of your articles, any articles show up consistently in smaller text (in painfully small text in fact) consistently on my mobile devices compared to literally any stuff I read on other sites.
Franco said:
And radeng is correct: Chase was having a conversation with himself and answering his own question. Field Reports were not the primary cause of his issue; the primary cause was putting the women who were in the field reports themselves on a pedestal when he used the rating system to describe them. So he chucked out the rating system and starting seeing success again.
Maybe. But this wasn't my reading of the article. Chase wrote:
Chase said:
This was part of it, I figured out. I took to only ever writing field reports about girls I wasn't all that excited about meeting, to avoid building a girl I was impressed with into even greater proportions. In fact, if I met a girl I really liked, I wouldn't even think about her, or mention her to anybody else. I'd just forget about her until I had her on a date again.
I understood this as he quit writing field reports on girls he was interested in. Now this means
if you only approach girls you are somehow interested in, you don't write field reports on them at all, do you? At least, this is my reading of this article.
At least, speaking of my situation,
we got to the conclusion with Chase that his article and advice about lowering your standards isn't the most relevant to me. So in normal situations it makes sense that you express interest in, well, girls you are interested in, right? It just sounds so logical.
radeng said:
FRs are one of the best tools to getting better with women that I personally know of. It makes you examine yourself and your mistakes and positives in close detail and reinforces your good qualities and makes you aware of weakness. There is hardly a better way to grow.
Maybe Chase has written about the benefits of writing field reports somewhere else, but this wasn't my takeaway from this article. I'm just trying to Google for such an article on your site right now, without results.
Franco said:
I hope that clears things up!
But to get back to the original premise on the article, the 10-scale. Basically Chase suggest to throw out the 10-scale. Okay. Then
this thread came up, based on the 10-scale, with eager participation of Girls Chase staff and elder members, including you. Interestingly,
only I got to call out the confusion - or how to say this in English correctly.