Ulax

Loool there should be a little animation each time

That's called being codependent

lmao

Weren't you the one criticising game as shallow. How does that makes sense when you're a freaking salesmen lol And ofc its gonna be way easier to chat people up if your career resembles the exact thing you're trying to do.

@Emotionalmosquito Respect for all the action taking bro. Sounds like you need to buy a pickup program though. Who are you getting advice from atm?

Yes, i get you re the interesting thing, and I agree people can, at least on occasion, naturally approach you/ make it easier to talk to you. I would disagree about the pickup community treating human connection like a limited resourced. I'd say its exactly the opposite.

I agree that not giving a fuck is about being detached from outcome. But if you didn't care about outcome you wouldn't ever approach anyone. Its better to have an outcome that isn't about just getting some sexual result. Like I want to have fun and connect with other cool people, and if that ends in sex then that's cool too.

@LordFall Sounds good man. But being dodgy and giving effective advice aren't mutually exclusive. And nice work on the hot girls. How much did you pay them to be there?

Depends what you mean by attraction. Some mean attraction as emotionally aroused, and some mean attraction as the image of the other person you have in your head.

Yes, I've heard that guy is dodgy too. I know someone who said he mocks his clients

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unless you're lucky enough to have had a good formative social experience with women, you can't generally just rely on authentically connecting with women and get a girl you're not settling for.

You got me. I actually just got helicoptered to the hospital because I had three heart attacks out of fear of being banned. Luckily the pilot let me use their phone to reply to you now

I understand the curiosity. But I'd rather not talk about that.

Leo spoke about this before. Essentially, he said he is willing to make the trade-off of allowing less mature people so that actualized can be more accessible. I'd personally prefer a more liberal use of the ban button.

I can parrot some theory to you regarding this. But i only have one date where I've tried this so far. Went well though. But was just being more 'I love' 'i hate' when talking about my hobbies. Essentially, this is a third-party topic. (Isn't connected to you or the girl), and that isn't great. But you can connect it to you by talking about your emotions in relation to it. Firstly, can engage her by making strong emotional statements that use with words like 'love' 'hate'. For example, "I love thinking about how the world really works", or "I hate the idea of living my life without satisfying my curiosity about how the world works". (This i reckon could definitely be an upgrade for you, where you both get a better experience). Secondly, you can convey your views on the topic through a story. The basics of a good story are situation, interruption, change, and you want to include the character's inner experiences. - For example, When i was a kid I was always fascinated by how reality worked. I loved watching films with my dad about sci films where people would be teleporting or time travelling, and i would always ask why that happened. As I grew up those films didn't scratch that same itch anymore. And I found my interests moved more towards philosophy. I hated the idea of not knowing how the reality around me functioned, and my curiosity about what reality is and the nature of why we are here, were on my mind all the time. And still now, philosophy is a real love of mine.

@CARDOZZO Thanks man. Will check it out. Edit: Damn that post seems gangster, apart from the preachy and blue-pill replies.

Which programs of his have you gone through to reach that conclusion?

Bro Todd V is your man for this. Dude is a wizard. But you have to get his programs of The System and Verbal Game Academy. His basic argument is the core of attraction is value + trust. I'll expand on Todd's view for the rest of my reply. Value: high-enough caveman high-survivability traits (value also has a flexible component based on girl's life history). Trust: That value being relatable + attainable. But the ratio and type of value will put you into either lover (i want bro's genes, even if he doesn't stick around; more value sided ratio needed) or provider (He'll protect me, provide for me and my kids; more comfort ratio needed compared to lover). Now, every fucking thing you do and associated to you implies a certain life history and present circumstance to the girl, which affects her value and trust levels. So, for example, its not that teasing is in itself attractive, but its that effective teasing conveys a certain understanding to her of you as having a high-value life history, and therefore high-value traits. Its like there are three conversations going on. Firstly, the outward one. Secondly, one where you're basically saying "I was ostracised growing up", "I was popular growing up", "I move through the world at ease". Thirdly, "I have social proof" "I have power/ influence" "I am competent", which are base value triggers. For example, when you ask for a number do you say "Can i have your number?" or "What's your number?" (Outward layer). The latter conveys the guy either (a) had a very successful life history with women so as to assume the number, or (b) that he was at least strong enough to deal with the social blowback of being cocky, or (c) that he had some other special quality that meant his cockiness wasn't beaten out of him (Second layer). (a) conveys social proof because implied social proof of other women liking him, (b) implies competence through strength implication, (c) implies competence through implication of a special quality. But, again, all these things mostly matter in respect to caveman survivability. Not present survivability. Hence, why IT guys aren't all having hugh hefner parties. ------ I don't get how Ralston or Wilber would be able to make even an intermediate model of attraction though, without just copying other models. Its like saying Ralston could've written his great meditation works if he had dedicated his life to studying history instead of meditation. But I also get that its reasonable to imagine an expert in one field of study being able to be an expert in another too. I'm interested about this David Deangelo course too. Please could you share the name. --- Fuck it imma nerd out some more on Todd stuff hahaha. One of the funniest things I learnt from him is role framing and frame racing. He mentions them without giving them a certain name, so i call them that. But essentially, there are high-value conversational roles like teaser, decider, objector, evaluator, obstacle-maker, leader. And because pre-framing (setting a frame) is much easier than reframing (changing an existing frame) you basically want to get there first. So, you can be the one to say you want to take things slow (objection-maker), you can be the one evaluating her, you can be the objectioner (saying something like "Im not sure you and i are compatible)

Nice. I think its very good for relationships.

No one is entitled to a response from anyone else. Though i can understand feeling frustrated by that. And I get you liked the dude, but this is getting tin foil hat like with regards to his ban. I wish the dude the best but the dude was acting like some sort of satirical spiritual cartoon character.

I get your concerns man. And I agree there is a place for allowing cult accusations, and I agree that suspiciousness could arise. But you aren't acknowledging that many of the accusations are either bad-faith or very unreasonable

Wow that was quite the poetic sentence . And yes that is a fair point.

Come on man. You make a reasonable argument before this and then make this Nahm argument again. i don't mean to be rude but this Nahm argument is a bit ridiculous. As I alluded to in my previous comment, the guy was giving cartoonishly bad advice in his mod position.

You make fair points, assuming the non-duality ban thing is true. Except for the point about Nahm. Nahm deserved the demotion. A guy could've been homeless, on food stamps and asking about how to find a job, and Nahm would've told him it was just a thought. Leo demoting him was very reasonable. And Leo was very lenient with him and gave him many chances.

I can get the frustration and irritation that unreasonable cult accusations must bring. And you have every right to call out their bs. I would find it exhausting and rage-inducing myself. And it annoys me when I see people make unreasonable or bad faith accusations agaist you. You have done good work over the years to ensure actualized.org doesn't become cult-ish, and improved your communications on the forum as you said you would. I have made criticisms of your actions before, but it is only fair I give you credit where it is due. Some only appear to want to do the former. That said, I can also understand the push-back on this thread. I think it would be right to mention that it is the unreasonableness of the accusations that you are against. Or that you will ban if the accusations are unreasonable, or clearly driven by bad-faith motivation. Being around here for a while I can understand where you're coming from but I could see a youtuber seeing this as an easy chance to jump to a negative conclusion and attack you. But also given the topics discussed here I don't think its right to completely close the door on cult criticisms being allowed. A middle ground could be to make it a ban based on unreasonable, or bad faith cult accusations. Or a ban on cult criticisms on normal threads, and then there is a feedback thread that opens once a week, say on a sunday, where people could make criticisms. And you could do it where they need to make the criticism in a certain format. And if they don't then its bannable. But again, I can understand not wanting to deal with the bs anymore.