Comprehension or editing: Why to Throw Out the 1-to-10 Scale for Rating Women

Space

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
563
Maybe you want to allow for titles longer than 80 characters so that I can actually form a proper sentence. I understand the full site is in beta.

Anyways. I was trying to read this article. Even though English isn't my native language, I understand more than 99% of what I read in English. But I'm stuck with the article at this point:

Okay, that wasn't it.

What wasn't what, specifically? I sense that in this case it may not be my English, but lack of editing. That the thought process of the writer wasn't made clear to be understood by the average reader. Or is it just me and are you native speakers get what Chase meant by Okay, that wasn't it? What wasn't what? Ah. No idea.
 

radeng

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
76
Re: Comprehension or editing: Why to Throw Out the 1-to-10 Scale for Rating Wome

Space,

The article is conversational and at that point in the article, the author is having a bit of a conversation with himself. To a native english speaker, it feels pretty natural, but it may not all be perfect grammar and I see how it may be confusing to a non-english speaker.

What I first noticed about myself early on that clued me into something amiss was this: I was a lot more likely to ever sleep with girls I did not write notes down on having met than girls I did.

The first thing I asked myself when I noticed this was what is going on?

Maybe I was only writing reports on the girls I was most impressed by - and who would also thus be the most likely to be out of my reach.

So, I took a break from writing field reports altogether, and - the proportion of girls I was sleeping with out of those I met or planned dates with went up.

Okay, that wasn't it.

"Okay, that wasn't it" is the author answering his on questions, "what is going on?" 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.

Basically the author is experimenting and answering the question, "what is going on"... he ends up eventually realizing it wasn't the FRs, but the pedestalization of the women that was making causing him to sleep with less women. The FR just reinforced his pedestalizing.

He is definitely NOT saying that FRs are bad. 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.

Cheers,
radeng
 

Franco

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,641
Location
Southern California
Re: Comprehension or editing: Why to Throw Out the 1-to-10 Scale for Rating Wome

Space,

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.

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.

I hope that clears things up!

- Franco
 

Space

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
563
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.
 

Franco

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,641
Location
Southern California
Re: Comprehension or editing: Why to Throw Out the 1-to-10 Scale for Rating Wome

Space said:
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.

Just because Chase mentioned to throw out the 1-to-10 scale does not mean I automatically agree. ;)

His point in the article mostly revolves around the idea of "rating" women as being something that can affect your mindset about how you treat them... often in negative ways that can result in you not getting the lay. If you put a girl you want to talk to on a pedestal as a "9" or "10" before you even talk to her, for example, you might drift away from your normal process because she's "different" or she's "more scary" to be bold around. The guy who does not see her as anything but "just another girl" is not going to be afraid to talk to her with confidence and charisma.

When you get to a certain level though (like myself), you can use any type of rating scale freely to rate girls because it doesn't affect your M.O. at all. Chase probably still does not use the rating scale himself, but he's probably at a level where he could rate a girl as a "9" and then still approach her and talk to her as if she was a "7" or lower; he has enough experience and confidence that the numbers don't distract him from his purpose or his process.

Try not to take the article too literally -- understand the message that Chase is trying to convey about the usage of the rating scale when you're a newer guy who might take it a little too seriously and end up botching his interactions with women because of it.

Cheers,

Franco
 
Top
>