Amongst the fellows of the Roissysphere, there is a lot of talk about game, but as of right now, there’s no clear definition of its fundamentals. Oh sure, we know what it is, and there’s a lot of material pertaining to various aspects of it, but there’s no handy article that spells the essentials out in plain language. Therefore, I want to construct, with the help of you, my readers, a correct, concise, and logical articulation of the fundamentals of game. I’m talking about INNER GAME here – not the best neg to use on a barfly vs. a churchgoing Baptist, or what color of shirt to wear when you go out clubbing, but the core attitudes that a man must possess in order to attract women, that work anywhere and in any time period. I want to create something that can be used to inform insiders, educate newcomers, and school haters.
I have my own ideas on what constitutes the heart of game, but I want to hear from the commenters first. The floor is yours.
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ts pretty simple: Be independent. Don’t let anyone tell you what to do. Be a leader, not a follower. Don’t be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion.
I would however encourage you to come up with a quick primer to Game. I don’t believe one exists. It could go over the fundamentals (Neg, DHV, AMOG, etc…) and just give a quick introduction to the fundamentals. I’m sure it would help a lot of people get started.
Here’s are some I can think of:
1. “I don’t need women to make me happy or have a life. I am not missing out on anything vital by not playing the Game.” Work on that one, even if you are planning to date or marry.
2. What women think of me as a mate doesn’t matter.
3. What other men think of me with respect to women’s views of me as a mate doesn’t matter.
4. Imagine your prospective mate as a man. Do they impress you now? Because that’s how they really are.
5. Imagine your prospective wife as 30 pounds heavier , gray, wrinkled, and menopausal. Because the gift wrap don’t last.
Being indifferent to outcomes is essential. Which is very different from being apathetic.
From dictionary.com …
ap·a·thy (Äp’É™-thÄ“)
n.
1.
Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
One man’s apathy is another’s man indifference.
I would however encourage you to come up with a quick primer to Game. I don’t believe one exists.
Magic Bullets is out there. It costs something like $20 if you can’t figure out how to get it for free. The Adventures of Brad P. is a good one too – it’s a collection of bunch of his field reports. Sinn just updated his Game Acceleration Doctrine, which he gives away for free. I think it’s like 60 pages or something. I think the link is http://www.sinnsofattraction.com.
In general, there is a ton of free shit out there oriented around the various models of Solid Game.
Don’t try too hard…
“The world is like a drunken peasant. If you lift him into the saddle on one side, he will fall off again on the other side. One can’t help him, no matter how one tries.” Martin Luther
“It is better to rise from life as from a banquet – neither thirsty nor drunken.” Aristotle
Inner Game is masculine application of the Golden Mean. Eager, bumbling pursuit and embittered, vengeful self-exile are both Beta. The two extremes on any spectrum of behavior are both vices. Arete, virtu, manly virtue, lies in the middle, in thoughtful and habitual self-determined action.
Murray Bowen founded one of the least pernicious schools of family therapy; a key concept in Bowenian therapy is fusion versus differentiation. The terms are ill-chosen, but the concepts they signify are useful applications of the Golden Mean to family dynamics. Differentiation describes the ability to act independently in relationships. Fusion is the lack of differentiation, the tendency to “depend so heavily on the acceptance and approval of others that either [you] quickly adjust what [you] think, say, and do to please others or … dogmatically proclaim what others should be like and pressure them to conform.” (Differentiation of Self)
From the same page: “A person with a well-differentiated “self” recognizes his realistic dependence on others, but he can stay calm and clear headed enough in the face of conflict, criticism, and rejection to distinguish thinking rooted in a careful assessment of the facts from thinking clouded by emotionality”
Bowenian theory is 20th century provincial and does not address sexual differences, to it’s detriment. A version that took into account hypergamy and feminism would be of substantially greater value.
Heh, I see what you’re saying re: indifference = apathy.
And when Webster’s gets involved, look out.
But what I’m saying is apathetic guys don’t go for things. I’m talking about indifference to the outcome of your efforts, not indifference towards taking action.
Luvsic: “I’m talking about indifference to the outcome of your efforts, not indifference towards taking action.”
Not caring about what others think is different from not being influenced by what others think.
“It is better to rise from life as from a banquet – neither thirsty nor drunken.†Aristotle
Ah! But it’s better to not commit this fallacy. – Anakin. ;-)
Anyway, this is a discussion about inner game. Not a discussion about the merits of what one ultimately chooses to do or not do.
I have to say I have some serious objections to what Anakin is saying here. T.S. Eliot once said that a heresy is when you take a truth and push it until it becomes a falsehood.
1. “I don’t need women to make me happy or have a life. I am not missing out on anything vital by not playing the Game.†Work on that one, even if you are planning to date or marry.
A good marriage is one of the two or three biggest things you can do increase your happiness and overall life satisfaction. It is well worth pursuing. Of course, a bad marriage can be a curse on your life, but then always playing it safe is not a good strategy for having a good life.
2. What women think of me as a mate doesn’t matter.
What any particular woman thinks of you doesn’t matter. However, if the vast majority of women don’t think much of you as mate material, that should at least give one some pause. Their rejection may be due some morally neutral factors that you cannot help, but may also be due to serious inadequacies on your part. It is wrong to make womens opinions the measure of all things, but it is also wrong to completely ignore their feedback.
3. What other men think of me with respect to women’s views of me as a mate doesn’t matter.
Basically, same as above.
4. Imagine your prospective mate as a man. Do they impress you now? Because that’s how they really are.
A good man doesn’t necessarily make a good woman. I’d agree that some standards, particularly basic moral standards, that apply equally to women as to men. But in certain circumstances it is often seriously misguided to apply male standards to women. For example, expecting women to be as reason driven as men in all situations is unrealistic. Women have different gifts. That fact can be abused so as to excuse female misbehaviour, but it also happens to be true.
Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.
It comes from the mouth of God.
I would say that several of Roissy’s ’16 commandments of Poon’ are basic principles of Game.
My ’5 elements of Moderate Game’ are a general outline of what constitutes a minimal start-to-finish skillset.
OneSTDV:
I’ts pretty simple: Be independent. Don’t let anyone tell you what to do. Be a leader, not a follower. Don’t be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion.”
But what does being independent constitute? I’m looking to get to the basic components of good game.
“It could go over the fundamentals (Neg, DHV, AMOG, etc…) and just give a quick introduction to the fundamentals.”
Dude, those AREN’T fundamentals. I’m talking about inner game, not tactics.
Anakin:
Thursday addressed the points of your comment that I wanted to address, but good call in regards to calculated apathy.
Eumaios:
“Inner Game is masculine application of the Golden Mean. Eager, bumbling pursuit and embittered, vengeful self-exile are both Beta. The two extremes on any spectrum of behavior are both vices. Arete, virtu, manly virtue, lies in the middle, in thoughtful and habitual self-determined action.”
Something I hadn’t considered. Good work.
The Fifth Horseman:
“I would say that several of Roissy’s ‘16 commandments of Poon’ are basic principles of Game.”
I can probably guess which ones, but care to share anyway? Keep in mind that I’m looking for base attitudes and not specific tactics or moves that aren’t applicable in all situations.
Thursday writes:
A good marriage is one of the two or three biggest things you can do increase your happiness and overall life satisfaction. It is well worth pursuing.
Tell that to Roissy. ;-)
Qualify qualify qualify. Make her jump through your hoops. Control the frame. The best compliment I get from a girl is when they say I have high standards as they flip their hair and mirror my body language.
There seems to be a huge mental block/denial exercise among socialcons and even a few MRA types about the existence of LTR Game. This is despite piles of evidence provided about people using LTR Game in their marriages and LTRs.
Ferdinand, remember that whatever you write up, it will still continue to be true that 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever grasp what Game is.
Ferdinand,
I would say that all Commandments except 7 and 14 are principles of Game that should become internalized beliefs. They are not tactics.
Another avenue to look at is the very correct definition of Game from Mystery, as being the ‘Venusian Arts’. The Martial Arts are about self-defense and fighting. The Venusian Arts are about love. That is the correct analogy, and why those who oppose Game are being just as illogical as if they were to oppose Karate and Kung Fu.
Ferdinand, you get inner game as a consequence of practicing game. Game is like a habitual virtue, and as such it is transformative of a man’s character.
Game principles seem to be subjective and elastic. Is there any web sites dedicated to game fundamentals is there a set of game principles and “dos and don’ts that everyone agrees on?
Ferdi,
Excellent post, and something that will be one of the focuses of my upcoming blog (21 days y’all!). So this gives me a chance to toss a few ideas…
“Game” (noun): a complex of ideas, behaviors and concepts, designed to win the SEXUAL attraction of a Woman. Also known as Seduction.
Although Game is chockfull of terms, acronyms and tactics, at its base are what many consider to be “first principles”. Known as “Inner Game” these principles are considered to be far and away more important to the successful wielding of Game in general.
In the book The Game, Mystery gives a shortlist of the qualities all Alpha Males have; in my view, these qualities lie at the base of all Game:
The Alpha Male:
1. Smiles
2. Is well-groomed
3. Has a sense of humor
4. Is seen as the social center of the room
5. Is Confident
6. Connects well with others
In my time of formal study and application of Game, I have found that very few guys seem to show any core understanding of the above “first principles”. Most dive headlong into Negs, DHVs and the like, and often with disasterous results. Mystery was wise to prep his students in the fundamentals of Game-what some refer to as “Inner Game”, and everytime I am asked by a guy where he should start or begin with his own studies of Game, I always refer him to Mystery’s shortlist of Alpha Male qualities above, and ask the guy to be brutally honest about himself-how many of those things does he have? How many does he lack? Before he goes any further, he should have these six things downpat-and often, when they do, that alone can make the difference. I’ve seen it firsthand.
So, for me, Fundamental Game lay in the six Alpha qualities above. The more you have, the more solid your Game will be.
The Obsidian
Thought I’d add this to the mix given the discussion. It’s from Roissy’s Obama Nobel Peace Prize thread over at his place:
“d affectionate, while some like to fantasize and glorify rape. It is not wise to deny yourself the pleasure of my loving penis and gentle dominating guidance for a past or imagined misdeed by some jerk.
on October 10, 2009 at 10:15 pm Obsidian
Given that this is a venue where Game principles are taught and discussed, I would like to suggest we keep that in mind as we observe President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and what we all can learn from this.
For me, the single biggest lesson I learn from this whole thing, is that Game, matters. By that I mean, projecting confidence, having a winning attitude, being charismatic, a true seducer. Maybe those qualities always mattered in a Man; they definitely do today.
That the Nobel panel consists of 4 Women and 1 Man is not lost on me in awarding Obama the Prize; no matter what they look like or their ages, the bottomline is, as Women, they were undeniably smitten with Obama-his poise, his grace, his articulate, genteel ways. Women respond favorably to this, as evidenced by the voting numbers among Single and largely White Female voters in last year’s elections. That’s just a fact.
Obama’s winning the Nobel tells me that “substance†is at best a secondary concern when it comes to Women, much like “substance†is at best a secondary concern to us Men when we look on a Hottie. Sure, it’s a plus if girlfriend’s a Magna Cum Laude grad with stellar job cred and whatnot-but that’s not primary in our considerations, and we’d be foolish not to be upfront about that fact. This is in part why Sarah Palin got the treatment she did, because Women knew, even if dimly, that she wasn’t be lauded for her qualifications or the lack thereof, but because she appealed to Men both on the Right AND the Left.
Look, by now, the jury’s in-Brarack Obama’s actual bona fides are questionable, at best. Recently, I was being scolded by a former Obama campaign staffer on Obama’s stellar and numerous civil rights victories in court; when I asked her to please direct me to the website that outlined all of this, she went silent. That was more than a week ago. I haven’t heard back from her sense.
Just to be sure I was on my A Game, I went to Google and entered in the phrase “legal record†behind the following four Men’s names: Thurgood Marshall, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and John Edwards-in EVERY case, I could find at least one, if not many more, links that took me directly to sites that listed the cases litigated by these Men and their result.
When I did the same thing for Obama-NOTHING.
When I was told by another Obama supporter to use the “scholar†function on Google wrt to Obama, my reply was that I didn’t have to use such a function for the other four Men-why Obama? She refused to answer me. But I did what she said-again, NOTHING.
Obama has produced NO scholarship during his collegiate career, claims to have lost his Columbia thesis, wrote I think, only ONE article for the Harvard Law Review, and while faculty at the Univ. Of Chicago, not only didn’t write ANYTHING, he also didn’t participate in roundtable discussions and debates with other top law professors-a UOC tradition. And, I gotta tell ya, as someone who’s spent no less than five years of his life teaching in a university academic setting, I can tell you that for any scholar NOT to produce actual, well, scholarship is odder than odd.
Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire. All of the things many of you are saying about Obama, I saw way back in 2004, and held to my guns. It’s why I didn’t vote for him-not enough experience, no papertrail. The Man is for all intents, an empty suit. That’s, the fact, Jack.
And yet, here he is, not only the Leader of the Free World, but a Nobel Prize winner, and one who can literally, write his own All Access Pass to Poon. No matter what any of us says or thinks, dem’s the facts.
So, for me, the question is what can I learn from the Man so that I may up my Game.
They are, as follows:
1. Be Smooth-Obama is a Smooth Operator, a Master Seducer along the lines Greene mentions in the political section of his The Art of Seduction. His charisma, poise and grace, his laidback style, all of it, is a ladykiller.
2. Have a Winning attitude-has anyone here seen or heard Obama whine yet? Whining, sour graping, or good ole hatin’ is no way for a stompdown Alpha Male to think act or be.
3. Look the part-almost everytime you see Obama, he’s well put together-and he isn’t a fashion plate, either. Simple, dark colored suits that fit well, nice shirt and tie. Always rockin’ a fresh cut. Neat and polished. Forget what you heard, an Obama can and will trump a Tucker Max any day of the week on that score alone.
4. Be Exotic-because its one thing that seperates you from the pack. Obama’s different because, well, he’s Black. Or, perhaps better put, biracial. Or whatever. The bottomline is, he looks different from just about every other suit up there in those G7 summits. He stands out, and he looks good doing it. And when you’re exotic, articulate, suave, smooth and charismatic, your resume can be as razor thin as Obama’s and you can and WILL be successful. He’s the living proof.
Now-
I know Obama generates some very, very strong feelings in this crowd here at Roissy’s. In many ways, I can respect them, because I share some of those views myself. That said, we have to be very careful not to overlook the big lesson being taught here, by allowing our personal feelings to take over. Afterall, in the end, Game, and the basis on which it rests, which is Human Male & Female Sexualsocial Dynamics, isn’t a partisan, Dem or GOP thing-it’s universal. I may by philosophically opposed to the Man, but I fully intend to learn as much as I can from him and add it to my personal arsenal. The goal for me, is to up my Game.
What’s yours?”
The Obsidian
On our local lair forum, there are a few guys that consistently bring up the idea of the “closer mindset”. I appreciate that they do this because I think it’s critical. It’s also one of the biggest things missing from my game.
Obsidian,
I see the Nobel Prize as an attempt by these Norwegian women to feminize Obama. One could even call it a “high-tech castration” where they symbolically neutered is has so they can clothe Obama in a pretty pink dress of peace before he even gets the chance to get warlike with the rest of the world. The leaders of Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia must be having a good laugh about it right now.
Would they really try turning a true Alpha into a eunuch like they have with Obama? I don’t think so. They would experince waves if gina tingles gina’s every time he started spouting off about deploying his bunker busters. No, they see Obama as their cute little brother who has no will of his own. In other words he is a beta in their eyes.
Game, the use of alpha tendencies to control women, can be a useful tactic. It becomes dangerous, however, when it starts tainting the strategic level, which would be the big picture of how you wish to live your life. My personal choice is that a stable family life and raising children is my strategic objective. Any use of game must be subordinate to my strategic objectives. If I use game to pick up random chicks even after I am married then I am in conflict with my strategic goals. In stark contrast to my choice, the ghetto pimp or trailer park hustler can base his life on non-stop pussy conquest and therefore the tactical skills in getting the panties to drop are useful for a lifetime. For those interested in raising children, game becomes a tool used to turn your wife into the best mother she can be for your children.
Game and military strategy have much in common. The direct vs. the indirect is the theme of Basil Liddell Hart’s classic “Strategy”. The direct, with WW1 being the classic example, is the concept of a frontal attack and a war of attrition while the indirect approach is a war of manoeuvre and surprise. The best examples of the indirect would be the German invasion of France in 1940, the Israeli jump to the Suez in 1973, much of Sherman’s rampage after Atlanta and just anything Belisarius did. Liddell Hart really is the Roissy of military strategy and I highly recommend his book.
But just as military strategy has a tendency to be paradoxical (longest road is actually the shortest, victory leads to defeat, etc.) so does game. Using game has the danger of becoming a filter to screen for women who prefer alpha tendencies. But for a guy looking for a wife to start a family the use of game may conflict with his long term strategic goal, which is to find a woman who will be happy with a beta. Paradoxically using reverse-game (acting like a beta) from time to time may be an effective strategy when looking for a long term mate. Just a thought…
Always be closing.
Kevin,
As I tried to point out last night over at Roissy’s I really don’t think it’s a good or productive use of any of our time in trying to in some way, make a case against Obama here. It is, what it is. The Man, simply put, can write his own ticket to pussy, this Nobel Prize only burnishes that, NOT? As you suggest, takes away from it.
We should learn from this episode and apply to ourselves individually. That’s what I intend to do.
The choice, is yours.
The Obsidian
Obsidian
I’m not making a case against Obama. I’m making a case for how stupid the prize was. My comment was taking the point of view of the Norwegians. I am not interested in how much pussy Obama gets or could get; but I am interested in how he deals on the international level with adversaries. To me this prize hurts his ability on the international level.
Trying to distill the simple essence of it as it is taught:
Game is about being confident with women.
First, you pretend this confidence and strategise consciously on how to project it. Then, as you gradually build reasons to justify this confidence, it becomes true.
Kevin,
With all due respect, please spare me the handwringing about issues and things neither of us, nor anyone reading this, can do a darned thing about. What we CAN do about the situation, is attempt to learn from what we’ve seen this week. Let me spell it out for you: CHARISMA MATTERS. And Women, both here and abroad, respond overwhelmingly favorably to Obama BECAUSE HE GOT MADE CHARISMA, not in spite of it. That’s just a fact. All the logical arguments in the world simply will not work if the guy you’re arguing for is uncouth, and GWB was that. He was not smoot or suave. And in a post-JFK world, that sort of thing matters.
The main reason why so many Men fail at Game is because they simply refuse to accept that a great deal of it is ILLOGICAL-but then, Human Male/Female Sexual Dynamics always are. No one can make a really rational reason why Sarah Palin was qualified-true, moreso than Obama-but let’s be honest here: SHE WAS HOT, and that was the main reason why she got so much support from among Men, present company included. The only difference with me was and is, that I openly admit why I supported her.
If ever there was a case study to be made of Game in our time writ large, it is our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama. This is a Game blog, not a foriegn or domestic wonk thin tank. None of us has the ear of any US Congressman or Senator. So we should stop the bleating, put our personal feelings aside, and calmly analyze why it is Obama can do what he does.
I say its because he has Game, fundamentally, per the list of qualities Mystery talks about above.
What say you?
The Obsidian
Obsidian,
It may well be that the Nobel Committee was swayed by Obama’s game but it is almost impossible for us to know because the other most likely reason was that our Norwegian friends were simply projecting their political ideas onto the blank slate that Obama is (or pretends to be). The only way to control for this would be to see if there are any cases where the Norwegians went against their preconceived political interests and just followed their gina-tingles. In such a case we would be on much more solid ground on stating that game was the reason. As it stands it could be game, political naivety, or a combination of both. Since I live in Europe and have seen the Obama phenomenon here up close and personal — especially from straight men — I am sceptical that sexuality has that much to do with it, but I could be wrong.
The best analogy I can make is that Europe is like a young adult woman (lets call her Ingrid) who is growing strong enough to be independent but doesn’t quite have the nerve to go on her own so she still lives at home with her parents. Her stepfather would be the US president and I suppose for this analogy her mother is the rest of the world. For the past several years Ingrid has cowered in fear at the outbursts of her angry and dominant stepfather George, who would openly berate her long-suffering mother and even on occasion beat the silly bitch right in front of her. Ingrid occasionally shouted shrill rebukes but all it would take was a dangerous glare from George to get Ingrid scampering back to her room where she covered her head with a pillow to drown out her mother’s screams.
Much to Ingrid’s relief her evil stepfathers’ brevet was up and her mother starting courting someone new and exciting — let’s call him Obama. This new paramour seemed kind, he said all the right things to her mother, apologized often, and never raised his voice, and even brought flowers on occasion. Ingrid was so ecstatic, the years of humiliation at the hands of George were now certainly behind her. Not only that she saw great things in the future for her mother; maybe at last prospects for her long-suffering mother would be bright and happy at last. Ingrid was so excited that she wrote Obama an embarrassingly naive Valentine’s card and called it a Nobel Peace Prize.
So, when she sent this embarrassing prize to Obama, was Ingrid just hot for Obama’s cock or was she projecting a space on his shoulders for her to ride into her dream for the future and foolishly saw this prize as one way to get there? Who knows, maybe a little of each.
On the other hand I just saw a report from France where they walked around and asked people if they thought it was right that Obama won. Almost all the women answered yes while all the men (including several black guys so race was not a factor) said no that it was way too soon.
In defining the fundamentals of ‘Game’ are we trying to define ‘Game’ itself, or is their some working definition already assumed? How robust or refined is your definition of ‘Game’?
Also, while Obsidian usually speaks a lot of truth about Inner Game, I don’t think Mystery’s list of Alpha male qualities really qualifies as ‘Inner Game’ at all. These are about mimicking Alpha male traits, instead of being an Alpha male. Mystery is very observant, and is awesome in selling his message, but I don’t feel he is very introspective. He’s also noticeably a neurotic mess, and kind of weird, which I think probably has a lot to do with his own self-esteem/late bloomer issues. He gets lots of women, but he doesn’t seem to think he can do it by just being himself. This isn’t a good attitude, and it isn’t ‘Inner Game’ at all. At least by the events portrayed in ‘The Game’, he doesn’t seem to have internalized his own method.
Why does the Alpha male smile? Why does he care about his appearance so much? Mystery cataloged what Alpha’s do; but not why a natural Alpha is the way he is, which is what Inner Game is all about. Being Alpha, not acting Alpha. I’m also in contention with some of his observations here. There is a lot more to male-female interactions than is thought of in Mystery’s philosophy.
I think you are beating your head against the wall with Obama too. People are too partisan to not see red by even mentioning the guy. I agree that Obama is Alpha, but his ability to get pussy should he want it is more about fame than anything else. There are countless examples of ‘Alphas’ in every aspect of their life that sort of suck with women that we have all doubtless seen. Obama is a better example of how we can turn our Game to other aspects of our lives. If we can charm women (and men) in social settings, what is not a social setting, and what part of life can we not navigate with these skills?
Not to mention who was the last non-Alpha POTUS? Despite the rhetoric a lot of Presidents didn’t have solid accomplishments. Harry Truman didn’t have a college ‘paper trail either; but that’s because he never even got a degree as probably the most egregious example. We have a system that promotes demagogues to power. That we even have some concept of meritocracy is a cultural phenomena; sort of a bug in the system.
Obama would probably have better access to more women, and more attractive young women if he wanted them, if he had devoted himself to becoming a successful musician or actor instead of a politician. Women want Obama because they are starfuckers, and he’s this generations rock star politician. Bush, immensely unpopular as he was, could probably have been as Clintonian as he wanted with the females too.
Mystery observed this. Be the social center of the room. Localized fame. Roosh and other PUAs mention the same tactic in being well known within their chosen venues. Obama’s venue is the world. But so is George Clooney’s, and despite Obama’s lack of merit, he still probably worked a lot harder to be where he is than most A-List celebrities, and a hell of a lot harder than any D-Lister that gets laid like mad too.
I’m also wary of the ‘closer’ attitude being advocated. The failure to close seems just like a second stage of Approach Anxiety to me. The mental state in overcoming Approach Anxiety will do the same for closing. Detachment from the outcome of events. Having no investment in what occurs after the moment you are in. ‘Always be closing’ seems like the exact opposite state of mind I’d want to be in.
“ABC” probably works for some because it’s a mantra that is drowning out internal dialog. You aren’t really concentrating on closing itself, but simply something abstract that is keeping your mind from latching onto the specifics of the social interaction or obsessing on future events. This mental trick doesn’t really work for me for whatever reason, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
Kyle,
I couldn’t care less about Mystery’s mental or emotional state, quite frankly, and to be brutally blunt, all of this twisting to avoid what should be bleedingly obvious by so many guys here and elsewhere is wearing quite thin on me.
“People” don’t see red when the name of Obama comes up-WHITE GUYS see red, and again, I can see where they’re coming from. Even empathize with a good bit of it, as I didn’t vote for Obama myself for many of the same reasons many of them/you have mentioned. Still, the difference between myself and my brothers, is that I am able to put aside my personal feelings in order to assess the world around me objectively, seek what can be learned, do so and move on. I mean really, how hard is that to do here? No one would argue that you need to like your teacher in order to learn from him or her, right? Just take the fish and leave the bones.
Obama is a wildly charismatic figure, and by all accounts he has a clear majority of the traits Mystery mentions in his list above, period full stop. Moreover, from all the natural Alphas I’ve known in my life, I’d say that they most certainly DO posess the lion’s share of the aforementioned traits, if not all of them, in spades. Yup, Mystery is a very keen student of human nature, and what he saw wrt natual Alphas in the field over the years and made note of above, comes as a direct result of said observation, not a series of field tested tactics and the like. This is why I consider what he said above, *before* ever actually heading out into the field with his students, as about as close to having Inner Game as it gets. And, it works.
Now, why do Alphas smile, because smiling gets you farther, especially with the ladies, than not smiling, that’s why. Naturals instinctively know this; lesser guys have to be taught this.
Why do Alphas care about how they look? Probably because they like to look good, I know I do-but also because they know that Women like a good looking guy. The plain truth is, that most guys don’t care about their appearance AT ALL, and this has a direct impact on their lack of success with Women. Guys who tend to do well with Women also tend to be well groomed-not necessarily fashion plates, but are clean-clothes laundered and pressed, and well fitting; clean shaven, fresh haircut, smells good, etc. Again, I cannot tell you how much of a slob most Men here in the States look like, and then have the nerve to catch an attitude when they don’t find most Women wanting to be bothered.
As for fame, yup, this most definitely helps Obama, but, as you noted, Mystery’s point above about being seen as the social center of a room is just as good. Natural Alphas have this, and just about any Man can learn it, too.
Anyway, look, I’m way past tired of seeing grownassed Men crying sour grapes about Obama. Either learn what he has to offer insofar as Game is concerned, get some other Game-relevant information and use it, or simply sitdown and shutup, is where I’m at at this point.
Holla back
The Obsidian
My point is, that I believe Mystery’s practice makes him mentally and emotionally unstable.
I also believe a lot of people would indeed argue that you need to like your teacher, if the lesson was how to be likable.
I totally fundamentally disagree with this. This is not Inner Game in any way. Alphas don’t smile because it gets them further. They smile because they are contended and happy. People want to be around others that are happy, and feed off of their good emotions. Alphas are the source of good emotions. The club is not, the bar is not. If it were empty of everyone but a single woman, it would not be a fun place to be, and she would not be happy. Insert a single Beta, and it would still not be fun. Add a single Alpha to the equation, and things are now fun and exciting.
There are people with magnetic personalities, but have nothing underneath to warrant them. It’s a built up persona with no foundation. An Alpha persona is not Inner Game.
Being highly socially aware and becoming a social chameleon by mirroring others behavior isn’t Inner Game to me. Inner Game is, for me, self improvement at the core of persons being. Naturals have a certain state of mind. The human mind can perceive itself, and change itself. A Beta can become an Alpha.
Part of that transformation, the beginning, is in the practice of Game (tactically speaking, employing a method). Practice doesn’t always make perfect though. Despite what’s put out there; there are a lot of people that become good tactically, but never actually grow as people. That’s a breeding ground for neurosis and weirdness in my opinion.
When I’m leaving to go to a bar, I don’t want to feel like I’m putting on my costume and leaving the Bat Cave. I know a lot of people that do though.
Kyle,
Whatever floats your boat, Man. I find a lot of guys like you who like to bicker and dither around w/the details; for most Men, most of the time, happiness has a lot to do with Women. Good, bad, right or wrong, there it is.
And being contented, or as you put it, Inner Game, has a lot to do with that. Self-improvement is a wonderful thing and I’m all for it. But let’s not fool ourselves here-Game addresses being successfully sexually with Women. Where one goes with that is up to the individual.
The list of traits Mystery lists helps a guy get from A to B; if you or others don’t need it, great! But I’ve seen quite a few guys “fake it till they make it” doing the above, and it works, and gave them the basis to form solid Inner Game.
*shrug*
The Obsidian
As I am new to “game†theory, there is one important point I am not clear about. Do Alphas have game? Or are they just Alphas, doing what they do naturally? To me the word “game†connotes artifice. So a perhaps more valid definition would be game is a device through which Beta men try to imitate the pussy-scoring ways of the Alpha. If this is the definition then Alphas don’t use or have game; they don’t need to since they are natural gina tinglers.
kevin de bruxelles:
“Do Alphas have game?”
Yes. Game is the means by which alphas get women. By learning game, non-alpha men can improve their ability to pull women, with the best among them becoming alphas themselves.
Recently I have been stuck on these two words:
Preselection
Hypergamy
These explain almost all female behavior.
What game does is to make the woman feel the man is preselected.
Hypergamy comes after a perceived preselection is established.
Preselection is more powerful than hypergamy.
That is why Obama is so wanted among women. His behavior towards his wife (who looks like a total pain in the ass in domestic life, spoiled, entitled etc) is full on beta. His behavior towards other world leaders is a joke. But, media portrays him as desired by other people (women), thus women go crazy on him.
Fame = Massive preselection
Without preselection, money power etc make the man a powerful tool, rather than just another tool.
Neg, aloof behavior, bad behavior, etc, all have one mission: Turn on the “he’s preselected” switch in a woman.
Try for one day looking at the interactions between women and men through the preselection lens.
It is a vicious cycle.
In trying to come up with a way of distilling the essence of “LTR GAME” I think I broke it down to one very important relationship dynamicfor which men can judge whether or not they are in a good relationship with their woman. Ask yourself the following:
“Does my behavior or conversations with her resemble a relationship between a man and a woman that desires and respects him…or does it resemble a little boy afraid of upsetting his mother?”
“Amongst the fellows of the Roissysphere, there is a lot of talk about game, but as of right now, there’s no clear definition of its fundamentals”
And there never will be. PUA culture is like a giant inkblot, everyone sees whatever they want to see. You can easily just make things up at random if you feel like it. PUAs can’t even agree on basic terminology (such as the meaning of ‘alpha’).
Someone,
I disagree. Among all th PUAs I’ve read and interacted with, there seems to be a clear consensus as to what an Alpha Male is; if anything, my experience has been that critics of Game tend to get hung up on such terms, and take issue with the community for the way in which they use such terms.
O
I’ve never seen any evidence of consensus. Roughly speaking, alpha means “good” and beta means “bad,” but since everyone has a different idea of what constitutes good and bad…
Game means never saying you’re sorry.
I am intellegent, capable, and unapologetic.
Someone I don’t know said they don’t like me. It was very anti-climactic.
{ 4 trackbacks }