I dont like cold approach

[Nilsi]

9 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

 

Some dudes on this forum need to take couple of boxing classes and need their face punched in to know what life is really about. The 5 MeO DMT has zonked them out to their mind. 

That un-ironically would help 95% of guys here more than all of the books and psychedelics in the world.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

That's quite dishonest.

You people are quite obviously biased toward attributing all their success to money, status and manipulation - when clearly that's only half of the equation.

What makes the Tate's such fascinating characters in the first place is precisely that it's not just all Machiavellian.

They are legitimate intellectuals - Tristan once talked about having read 1000s of books when he was younger - they are as high value as one can be from an evolutionary bio standpoint and they are some of the most persuasive orators I've ever listened to.

You have to call them evil and stupid - studying them objectively would confront you with a lot fucked up shit about yourself and your inadequacies; and that you want to avoid, of course.

How do you know they aren't lying about the amount and quality of books they've read?

Also, neither of them graduated from a college or university. 

Moreover, have they talked about any high intellectual topics in-depth like Leo has? Have they had intellectual discussions with intellectuals like Sam Harris, Ken Wilbur, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, or even Jordan Peterson?

[NoSelfSelf]

When are you guys start to become men and stop looking what other men are doing and study yourself, its honestly ridicioulous...?

[Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

How do you know they aren't lying about the amount and quality of books they've read?

Also, neither of them graduated from a college or university. 

Moreover, have they talked about any high intellectual topics in-depth like Leo has? Have they had intellectual discussions with intellectuals like Sam Harris, Ken Wilbur, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, or even Jordan Peterson?

They are radical utilitarians.

How do you think this looks in practice?

Also, isn't it ridiculous that you immediately assume they are lying instead of considering whether there could be something to what I'm saying.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Nilsi

[Hardkill]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

They are radical utilitarians.

Yeah, they are in the way that malignant narcissists like Trump are for themselves.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Hardkill

[Miguel1]

@Nilsi

Bro just the fact of all the devilry shit they have done and promotes says enough. Doesn't matter if they are the ultimate ''developed'' people or not.

Look at Owen Cook for Healthy Ultimate Developed stage Orange + a bridge to spirituality for normies.

This is why unmoderated free speech is stupid as fuck and dangerous, and you and Tate fans are the epitome of why that is.

The amount of Tate fans in this forum is quite shocking.

[Hardkill]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

How do you think this looks in practice?

Also, isn't it ridiculous that you immediately assume they are lying instead of considering whether there could be something to what I'm saying.

Maybe they aren't lying, but I have yet to see proof of them having such great in-depth knowledge and understanding of the world like that of a true intellectual.

[Jacob Morres]

Problem with ops advice is its too moralize-y and doesn't consider the man's pov. It's like you got brainwashed by some feminists talking points.

It's also givin advice like every dude is in the same position and is the same person 

There's very little alternative for developing social skills. So if you Just say don't cold approach provide some strong alternatives

Also some of your statements like 'just don't be desperate' is really divorced from reality. Actualizing that is quite tough esp for many dudes with no attention/validation from women. You need better solutions for that

Though op you raise a Good point about comfortability so teaching social intelligence is important. But Blanket stating "don't cold approach" is a weak. I've had tons of girls enjoy my company and have had several explicitly tell me they wished more guys approached women 

I think a better conclusion would be, teach *socially calibrated* cold approach. Not get rid of cold approach in general

 

These absolutes and lack of nuance is just so silly. Like mf sees some cops make some bad decisions and wants to completely defund the police 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Jacob Morres

[something_else]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That's quite dishonest.

You people are quite obviously biased toward attributing all their success to money, status and manipulation - when clearly that's only half of the equation.

What makes the Tate's such fascinating characters in the first place is precisely that it's not just all Machiavellian.

They are legitimate intellectuals - Tristan once talked about having read 1000s of books when he was younger - they are as high value as one can be from an evolutionary bio standpoint and they are some of the most persuasive orators I've ever listened to.

You have to call them evil and stupid - studying them objectively would confront you with a lot fucked up shit about yourself and your inadequacies; and that you want to avoid, of course.

All I said was that what you originally pointed out as 'mental gymnastics' and 'discrediting tate' was neither of those things. Nothing in your last two multi-paragraph replies to me addresses that original point at all. To precisely clarify, the only point I made was that the following statement:

Quote

He prolly went to clubs, bought tables, and picked up girls -- in the beginning. But that wasn't too effective so he came up with his other scheme.

is not 'mental gymnastics' or 'discrediting tate'. I then followed that up by saying that you interpreting that as an attack on Tate shows a deeply seated bias towards defending him at all costs.

I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how anything you said after that addresses this core point I was making.

Edited February 9, 2023 by something_else

[Chives99]

8 hours ago, Kalki Avatar said:

Its all on the framing. You literally need to practice framing interactions as you will. Start framing interactions with average people where you dont feel its risky. 

The essence for having success when approaching is embodying a good vibe. You need to communicate chillness like its completely normal to talk to stranger. You have to talk to them like they are family. Then they can accept that frame and meet you there. You need to be chill and light. No need to do a long conversation. Just say some stuff, chit chat and go. 

Parks with dogs and stores is where you can practice that first. 

By the way man, can you pm me? I would like to ask you something @Chives99

can u pm me?

[StarStruck]

On 7-2-2023 at 7:20 PM, Leo Gura said:

Absolutely.

But it is crucial to be able to maintain a conversation. The words don't matter so much but holding conservation is a kind of sub-communication and it is key to getting laid.

Developing that skill was one of my biggest challenges.

I have trouble with this too now I think about it. I expect the girl to do 50% of the talking. The very hot girls don't put in this effort. It is more like 20%/80% to her/me talking.

Is there a secret to maintaining a conversation or is it just pure experience?

If I'm in a good mood, I don't have trouble with small talk. I guess big part of it is being in a good state, letting the field doing the work instead of the ego. But there is definitely a technical aspect to maintaining flow which I need to work on.

 

[Leo Gura]

23 hours ago, Nilsi said:

He and his brother did what every guy here does - they went to clubs, talked to girls, collected numbers and set up dates.

Literally what I said.

[Ulax]

@StarStruck Have you tried implementing free association and associated practices?

[Ulax]

20 hours ago, Hardkill said:

How do you know they aren't lying about the amount and quality of books they've read?

Also, neither of them graduated from a college or university. 

Moreover, have they talked about any high intellectual topics in-depth like Leo has? Have they had intellectual discussions with intellectuals like Sam Harris, Ken Wilbur, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, or even Jordan Peterson?

@Hardkill I think this is a useful point to make. It got me thinking and I'll make an argument here about why it is reasonable to presume that Tate's worldview is relatively unintegrated and limited. (Note this argument applies to his brother too).

---------------

Point 1: Its reasonable to presume that Tate has a limited intellectual education

- Premise 1: Its reasonable to me to presume that someone who did not go to college has a relatively limited intellectual education

I believe in typical self development circles discussions can resort to a rejection of mainstream intellectualism, and devalue too much the value of listening to people who went to college compared to those who have not. I see a conflation between the narrative that one does not need to go to college to get an exemplary education these days, and the narrative that people who go to college as a group are not more educated than people do not go to college. People who go to college, as a group, are much more intellectually educated than those who do not. However, it is true that these days some people will get a superb education, and at times better education, through their own studies than at university. That said, I believe that number is rather small.

Therefore, if you pick a random person who went to college it is quite probable that they will be more intellectually educated than a random person that did not go to college. However, if you pick a random person who went to college it is not certain that they will more educated than a random person who did not go to college.

To me it follows that its reasonable to presume that someone who did not go to college has a relatively limited intellectual education. (To presume a view is, to my mind, to treat something as true for practical purposes while accepting that its possible that its not true, and the view is susceptible to being rebutted.)

- Premise 2: Tate is part of the group who did not go to college.

- Premise 3: Therefore, it follows that its reasonable to presume that Tate has a limited intellectual education.

Point 2: It reasonable to presume Tate has a relatively high potential amount of direct experience education

To me, Tate certainly potentially has a form of knowledge which he has hard won via direct experience. This gives him access to a potential set of knowledge about aspects of social dynamics, business and being successful that cannot be won via purely academic means. (Note potential as his narrative surrounding his own successes is susceptible to bias and ignorance, as is always the case.)  To me, it follows that Tate has a relatively high potential amount of direct experience education.

Point 3: If someone has worldview based on  relatively high potential direct experience education but a relatively limited intellectual education , then that person has a relatively rather unintegrated and limited worldview.

Conclusion: It follows from point (1), (2), and (3) that its reasonable to presume that Tate's worldview is relatively rather unintegrated and limited.

[StarStruck]

41 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@StarStruck Have you tried implementing free association and associated practices?

That is weird 

[Ulax]

@StarStruck I'm surprised by your opinion. I found personal use in it, and I understand that various RSD instructors and those influenced by them advise this practice.

Why do you think its weird?

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Hardkill I think this is a useful point to make. It got me thinking and I'll make an argument here about why it is reasonable to presume that Tate's worldview is relatively unintegrated and limited. (Note this argument applies to his brother too).

---------------

Point 1: Its reasonable to presume that Tate has a limited intellectual education

- Premise 1: Its reasonable to me to presume that someone who did not go to college has a relatively limited intellectual education

I believe in typical self development circles discussions can resort to a rejection of mainstream intellectualism, and devalue too much the value of listening to people who went to college compared to those who have not. I see a conflation between the narrative that one does not need to go to college to get an exemplary education these days, and the narrative that people who go to college as a group are not more educated than people do not go to college. People who go to college, as a group, are much more intellectually educated than those who do not. However, it is true that these days some people will get a superb education, and at times better education, through their own studies than at university. That said, I believe that number is rather small.

Therefore, if you pick a random person who went to college it is quite probable that they will be more intellectually educated than a random person that did not go to college. However, if you pick a random person who went to college it is not certain that they will more educated than a random person who did not go to college.

To me it follows that its reasonable to presume that someone who did not go to college has a relatively limited intellectual education. (To presume a view is, to my mind, to treat something as true for practical purposes while accepting that its possible that its not true, and the view is susceptible to being rebutted.)

- Premise 2: Tate is part of the group who did not go to college.

- Premise 3: Therefore, it follows that its reasonable to presume that Tate has a limited intellectual education.

Point 2: It reasonable to presume Tate has a relatively high potential amount of direct experience education

To me, Tate certainly potentially has a form of knowledge which he has hard won via direct experience. This gives him access to a potential set of knowledge about aspects of social dynamics, business and being successful that cannot be won via purely academic means. (Note potential as his narrative surrounding his own successes is susceptible to bias and ignorance, as is always the case.)  To me, it follows that Tate has a relatively high potential amount of direct experience education.

Point 3: If someone has worldview based on  relatively high potential direct experience education but a relatively limited intellectual education , then that person has a relatively rather unintegrated and limited worldview.

Conclusion: It follows from point (1), (2), and (3) that its reasonable to presume that Tate's worldview is relatively rather unintegrated and limited.

54 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

This is getting comical.

Tristan literally told you he has read 1000s of books.

Has he read Ken Wilber, Peter Ralston and Byron Katie? Unlikely.

Is it reasonable to assume he has read utilitarian stuff like "The Selfish Gene," "Thinking Fast and Slow," "Fountainhead" and the likes... - I'd say it's very likely.

They obviously have a strong grasp on this worldview and more "shallow" aspects of psychology. It's not uncommon to be very well read in these circles - it's just not the kind of education someone like Leo promotes.

Also, not everyone is a nerd like Schmachtenberger and showers you with jargon - the central doctrine in sales & marketing is "show don't tell," i.e. be very descriptive and talk about stuff you can see and feel in your speech. All that is to say, just because they don't quote Nietzsche to you doesn't mean they haven't engaged with it.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Nilsi

[StarStruck]

14 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@StarStruck I'm surprised by your opinion. I found personal use in it, and I understand that various RSD instructors and those influenced by them advise this practice.

Why do you think its weird?

Conversation becomes very random with free association. 

Perhaps I’m doing it wrong. I don’t know. 

But from my exp it is kind of weird. 

I try to be more natural speaker. I don’t want to come off as forced. 

If I have to chose between a forced conversation and no conversation, I prefer the latter. 

[Ulax]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

 

This is getting comical.

Tristan literally told you he has read 1000s of books.

Has he read Ken Wilber, Peter Ralston and Byron Katie? Unlikely.

Is it reasonable to assume he has read utilitarian stuff like "The Selfish Gene," "Thinking Fast and Slow," "Fountainhead" and the likes... - I'd say it's very likely.

They obviously have a strong grasp on this worldview and more "shallow" aspects of psychology. It's not uncommon to be very well read in these circles - it's just not the kind of education someone like Leo promotes.

@Nilsi First, note that I said it is a presumption, so it can be rebutted, and I'm open to being rebutted. 

Second, can you link me or let me know of a way to find a source about Tristan reading 1000s of book?

Thirdly, btw, I wouldn't see Peter Ralston and Byron Kate as necessarily people I would presume are well intellectually educated. And I wouldn't say that reading them helps one get more anything but nominally more intellectually educated.

Fourthly, I don't understand what worldview you are referring to in the phrase "strong grasp on this worldview" or what you mean by "shallow aspects of psychology".

Fifthly, I personally don't think its reasonable to assume he has read stuff like the books you describe. Why do you think it is very likely?

Further, even if one does read the 3 books you mentioned I still don't think that grounds a well rounded worldview. I think "The Selfish Gene" and "thinking fast and slow" could give high level perspectives in certain areas of empirical thought, but many more texts/ lectures from many for areas would need to be studied for me to see them as having a well developed world view. So they are no doubt part of developing a well developed worldview but cannot alone be seen as comprising one.

And I don't think the fountainhead adds, in the way its usually read, to much to the development of a well developed worldview as it presents only one philosophical view on the world, via the use of  philosophical fiction. I don't think that philosophy gives you a reliable understanding of how the world works, as that would, for me, be a matter to use empirical works to understand, rather than using a rationalist work. I think the fountainhead could certainly help improve one's worldview if seen as a means by which to understand a certain ideology that people use to understand the world.

 

[Ulax]

8 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

Conversation becomes very random with free association. 

Perhaps I’m doing it wrong. I don’t know. 

But from my exp it is kind of weird. 

I try to be more natural speaker. I don’t want to come off as forced. 

If I have to chose between a forced conversation and no conversation, I prefer the latter. 

@StarStruck I think I get you. Perhaps you are saying it comes off as weird and socially uncalibrated when you employ free association techniques in conversation?

Firstly, I used to practice free association exercises at home. Here is a video that provided content on an exercise I have used to help free association.

I found it helped me develop the type of mind where I would just naturally think of more conversation topics throughout the day, and in interactions. Why build the muscle only during sets? If you do it at home you build the muscle there, and can focus on spotting the the limiting beliefs surrounding free associating when in interactions and also how socially calibrated it is. Not much gained by practicing that aspect of game when in set, when you could build it at home.

Secondly, in my opinion, the better approach to game is not to focus on getting results but improving your skill set. First, you get good theory on game. Second, based on this theory, you then, one by one, pick certain aspects of game to work  on. You choose the highest impact areas to work on first. Thirdly, when in interactions you focus primarily on improving that one area of game you are working on. Sometimes to get better you have to get worse at first. For example, say I start working on my eye contact. I understand that if i make significant improvement with it, then I will get part of game significantly handled. So I try it, and for the first few days my interactions go to shit. I creep girls out. I feel more anxious. I hold eye contact too long and too wide eyed. So I stop and go back to my original game, and my results improve back to where they were. Have I made the right choice? Yes, if i focus on short term results. No, if i focus on long term results. 

No because if I stuck with working on eye contact and analysed my sets properly, i.e. via field reporting and paying attention to theory, then after a certain amount of deliberate practice I would have made significant improvements to my eye contact and ironed out the newbie mistakes with it. In doing so, I would get superior long term results in game compared to if I had just stopped working on eye contact and gone back to my original game.

So, in your situation you are a newbie with free association imo. You try it for some time and find your results decrease, and as you seem to prioritise short term results you stop doing free association. You think this improves your game. And, it does short term. However, because good theory tells me that free association is a key part of game, you are missing out in terms of your long term development. If you take your stabilisers of your bicycle and you start falling off your bicycle it does not mean that taking the stabilisers off is a mistake.

Game is just a skillset at the end of the day.