Valach

Here basically. What kind of wounds do you expect it to cure?

If trauma is just a lack of Orange, how do you explain high-performing CEOs, elite athletes or successful pickup coaches who openly struggle with anxiety, addiction, perfectionism or insecure attachment? They seem highly Orange while also being clearly traumatized. Conversely, plenty of emotionally secure people have little interest in achievement or optimization. Sleeping with a lot of woman is not going to cure any wound inside of you.

You do not have to go through pickup to integrate healthy orange. Spiral Dynamics describes developmental values, while trauma describes nervous system and attachment patterns. Someone can be highly Orange and deeply traumatized, or relatively healed without being particularly Orange.

This is not a spiral stage. This is a trauma I am talking about. People who had really good parents and childhood do not feel drawn to it and it is not because they are more evolved.

That is precisely the myth shame keeps on telling you. You were born with true confidence, you lost it along the way. And it was not lack of woman in your life that caused it. I mean it could have been if the woman lacking in your life was your mother

Because pickup is shame-based industry. It holds this mindset of "there is something inherently wrong with me and if I work hard enough I can overcome it and get the reward (woman)". Shame comes from trauma - and it causes a lot of issues around self esteem, socializing and dating in general. I have never met a person in my life who was drawn into pickup and I would consider this person "reasonably healthy" - I met some guys who did a lot of inner work to move closer to such a point, but they started elsewhere. That is not me shitting on pickup guys. That's just what I observed. It is an industry as a whole that just attracts traumatized people. I, myself, am full of trauma.

Makes sense, thanks!

Disclaimer: I have used chatGPT to refine this post as I am not a native speaker and sometimes I struggle with formulating my ideas - so I wrote it down mostly in czech (my native language) and told it to translate and structure the text better - but all the ideas are my own. Hope that does not violate the rules of the forum. I've been thinking about social skills lately, and I've come to believe that what people call "social skills" actually refers to two fundamentally different paradigms. Externally they can look almost identical—both people may appear charismatic, confident and socially competent—but internally they operate from completely different places. The first paradigm is what most of us are taught. The goal is simple: learn what works. You observe what people respond well to, notice what creates attraction, admiration or approval, and then cultivate those behaviours. You become more charismatic because charisma is attractive. You become more confident because confidence gets better reactions. You stop being needy because you've learned that neediness pushes people away. The whole process is essentially reverse engineering human behaviour. The metric of success is external: Do people like me? Am I attractive? Am I respected? Can I get dates? Can I make friends more easily? This isn't limited to pickup. I think much of mainstream advice on confidence, networking, leadership and even parts of the self-development industry operate from this framework. The intention may not consciously be to please people—in fact, many communities explicitly teach people not to be people pleasers—but I think it often becomes a more sophisticated form of people pleasing. For example, someone stops being agreeable because they've learned that being disagreeable is more attractive. Someone teases because teasing creates attraction. Someone becomes mysterious because mystery creates intrigue. Externally this no longer resembles traditional people pleasing, but internally the reference point is still other people. Behaviour is continually adjusted according to what receives the best response. Approval hasn't disappeared—it has simply become more sophisticated. I think this approach can produce impressive results. People genuinely become more socially effective and attractive. However, I also think there is a hidden cost. The question quietly shifts from "What do I genuinely feel?" to "What version of myself produces the best outcome?" Over time, it can become almost impossible to distinguish authentic expression from optimized expression. Someone may sincerely believe they are authentic because the behaviour has become habitual, yet underneath there is still an implicit belief: "Who I naturally am isn't enough." The original insecurity never disappears—it simply receives a highly competent spokesperson. The wounded inner child remains hidden behind a confident adult persona. The second paradigm starts from a completely different premise. The goal is no longer to produce a particular reaction in other people. The goal is to remain deeply connected to yourself while interacting with them. Instead of asking "How should I behave?", you ask "What is actually true for me right now?" Sometimes that truth is attractive. Sometimes it isn't. Maybe you're nervous on a first date. Maybe you're feeling insecure, sad, excited or awkward. Authenticity means allowing those experiences to exist without immediately editing them into something more socially desirable. I'm not talking about emotional dumping or ignoring social awareness. Rather, I mean that your expression is guided primarily by your relationship with yourself instead of your attempt to control someone else's perception. The interaction becomes an expression of yourself rather than a performance designed to achieve an outcome. I think most people—including myself for many years—avoid this. Not because we're dishonest, but because we're afraid. Deep down many of us carry the belief that who we fundamentally are isn't enough. If I show the real me, they won't want me. They won't respect me. They'll reject me. So we unconsciously create a safer strategy. We become funnier, more confident, more charismatic, more emotionally intelligent, more successful. None of these developments are bad in themselves. The question is why we're developing them. Are they expressions of becoming more fully ourselves, or are they attempts to become someone we believe other people will finally accept? To me, that's the crucial distinction. If people reject the version of me I've carefully constructed, I can always tell myself they rejected the performance. But if I express myself truthfully and I'm still rejected, that feels much more vulnerable because now it feels like I was rejected. I think that's one of the biggest reasons authenticity is so difficult. The two paradigms therefore define success very differently. The first asks: Did they like me? The second asks: Did I stay connected to myself? Ironically, the second paradigm may sometimes produce worse immediate outcomes. People might like you less. You might receive fewer dates. You might be less socially polished. But something else develops: you stop abandoning yourself in order to gain connection. Perhaps the deepest social skill isn't learning how to make people like you. Perhaps it's remaining connected to yourself regardless of whether they do. I'd be curious what others think. Do you see these as genuinely different paradigms, or do you think they're ultimately compatible?

Agreed. But then why do we want someone who is not capable of being intimate with us?

Absolute vulnerability to me. It is the lack of controlling.

I actually have the old RSD course (I think it was Hotseat at Home), so I'm familiar with the concepts they teach. Where I think we disagree is on what self-esteem actually is. To me, genuine self-esteem isn't confidence that comes from approaching women, getting results, or being in a certain state. It's the ability to accept yourself regardless of what state you're currently in. If you wake up feeling grumpy, anxious, or mentally exhausted after a long day of work, you're still okay. You don't immediately feel the need to escape into a different emotional state before you can accept yourself. That's a much deeper issue than game. The reason I keep pushing back is that your framework still ties your sense of self to external evidence. If you're approaching, opening, in flow, and getting positive reactions, then you feel confident. If those things disappear, what happens to that confidence? That's exactly what toxic shame tends to do. It says, "I'm not enough as I am, but if I collect enough external proof, I can finally feel okay." To me, that's the same pattern you see in other areas of life. If you talked to a very Stage Orange businessman about self-love, he might say, "Show me your bank account and then I'll tell you whether self-love works." The metric simply changes—from money, to women, to status—but the underlying mechanism is the same: using external achievements to regulate your self-worth. None of this means approaching is bad. Exposure can be incredibly valuable. I just don't think it creates self-esteem. At best, it can increase confidence in a specific skill. Genuine self-esteem is something much more unconditional than that.

Most of them, yes. Obviously most of my friends are also only the people who are interested in this kind of work. But I have friends who are "normal". Like recently I started to hang out with my gym trainer. But I do not hide from him who I am - I try to present in a way that is digestible for him but I do not think that is me being inauthentic. Also I do not understand the part about becoming mirror - could you expand on that? @Miguel1 I do not think being authetic means that I go around telling people some insights or telling them how I view their inner worlds.

Could be. I have not lived it for so long to talk about it. But even now I have couple of friends who resonate with who I am so I am okay in this regard. Finding a partner is going to be different task though, lets see

That's actually where I think my perspective differs. Learning fundamentals like listening well, communicating clearly or respecting boundaries obviously makes sense. What I'm questioning is learning to optimise your behaviour primarily around what gets the best reactions from other people. My concern is that if the underlying motivation is "How do I get people to like me?" then repeatedly practising that may strengthen the habit of looking outside yourself for validation. From my perspective, authenticity isn't something you add after mastering performance. It's a different way of relating to people altogether.

I agree that a middle path will probably maximise social results. My question is whether maximising social results should always be the objective. If expressing something that is genuinely true for me causes someone to like me less, I'm becoming less convinced that's necessarily a bad outcome. It may simply reveal incompatibility rather than represent a failure of social skills. In other words, I think authenticity changes the optimisation target. Instead of optimising for being liked by as many people as possible, you're optimising for expressing yourself honestly and seeing who naturally resonates with that. Not to mention it is just so much more fulfilling for your own soul.

You have a misunderstanding what innergame is. It is not some affirmation you tell yourself. The "authentic" thought you have that tell you that you are not attractive are not yours. They have been planted there. What happens if you are out of the flow state? Do you lose your confidence? Average person is highly traumatised. Average guy who gets into pickup even more so. This is not being critical of you taking action. By any means go for it. But you seem to lack understanding what innergame or real self esteem etc is about. The real confidence is not build upon something. Not upon your looks, not upon how much money you make or how many woman want you in the moment, or what is your current flow/momentum or how much action you are taking. Flow is basically an attempt to compensate for having low self esteem. "When I am not in state I am not acceptable and worthy, but when I reach it I am okay - works quite similiar with alcohol or drugs".

Agreed. Many of the folks I met in pickup communities simply had no real friendships. You can't go out and talk to random people from such a low place.

The status/finances advice is actually mainstream advice - what we suggest on here is niche. My experience is that charisma/social skills/confidence absolutely dominate over money. Of course if you are some famous rapper or sports person you are gonna be above charismatic dudes. But that is just not really realistic or productive outlook for average guy. Average guy can build up his charisma in fairly short time frame. Building up any material success from a scratch in that time frame is quite a bit harder so the ROI is lower. Ps: I can't view what you sent, I do not have IG, what is it about?

Just sparking good emotions in people is a ton of social value but not much materialistic value. Some funny, charismatic guy who has not much else going on for him is just more appealing to woman than someone who may have money and cool lifestyle but is a bore. Seen it too many times.

You can go fulfill your survival needs without being manipulative or exploiting others.

What I find interesting is that your framework seems to evaluate the quality of a man's relationship with women primarily by how successful or efficient he is with them. To me, that actually hints at a subtle form of objectification. If the health of your relationship with women is measured mainly by how much attraction, sex or cooperation you get from them, then women are still being evaluated largely in terms of what they provide for you. That's still making your internal state dependent on them fulfilling your emotional or physical needs. I'd almost argue the opposite: the healthier your relationship with women becomes, the less your well-being depends on how successful you are with them. To me, genuine empathy starts when you see someone as a human being first and a woman second. Their value isn't determined by how attracted they are to you, how much validation they give you, or how efficiently the interaction goes. Those things may improve naturally, but they're no longer the metric by which you evaluate the relationship.

While some of what you say has some validity, there are definitely many many men who dislike woman and have not much of empathy for them whilst being succesfull with them.

I just want to say that, regardless of whether I agree with every opinions of yours, I really appreciate how elegantly and constructively you present your opinions. Been noticing it for some time

What do you feel would be productive?

Sorry bro but that is just such a cringe thing to say