Ulax

@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.

I get what you're saying about the lack of agency. I see your point regarding the shift away from what you can influence. That said, red pill does have a fair amount of agency too. They do focus on taking action to become a high-value guy. It isn't black pill.

I can understand why you see it as dangerous. I definitely agree that a substantial amount of it is dangerous. Particularly due to hateful fiigureheads like Tate and Fresh n Fit. That said there is a fair amount of truth in red pill ideas, like 40% of it. If mainstream stuff keeps being delulu about how attraction works then its understandable that alternative sources will help people meet the needs.

Not sure. Except I'll restate the point about red pill being much more abstract. I don't know how they differ content wise. The red pill stuff does seem like a lot of cope around avoiding cold approach though. I wouldn't be unempathetic to that if they were just honest about that. Pick up is rough. There seems like there are more higher-ideals in pickup too. Its more lets make life epic compared to the bitterness of red pill

No. Pickup is way closer to the truth than red pill. I mean its night and day. Red pill has some very good parts but also a lot of circle-jerk theorising to it. The major difference is pickup theory is derived from guys going out, trying stuff and seeing what worked. Then making theories based on those real-world experiences. Red pill is a lot more abstract theorising. And that lack of real world experience is bound to lead to more deluded theory.

Good stuff man. I agree