Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Does location matter?

Sometimes in "the community," seemingly conflicting advice is given. One area where this occurs is the answer to the question, "does location matter?" Some say it matters a lot (http://www.rooshv.com/the-busted-dudes-test), and some some say it matters little (http://www.returnofkings.com/17400/the-strength-of-your-game-is-situation-independent).

Instead of rehashing those arguments, let's borrow an analogy instead.

Think of dating as a market, where males and females trade. Each trader has a different amount of market value. What makes up that market value is detailed well here: http://krauserpua.com/2014/01/23/tom-torero-guest-post-male-sexual-market-value/.

Rolling with the market analogy, there isn't just one universal market for dating. This is because there are high (but not insurmountable) barriers to trading market value across long distances.

Instead, we have a bunch of markets. Each one is separated to a different extent from the others, and each one has a different composition of traders in it. These two factors determine the prices and quantities at which male and female market values are traded. Since the two factors differ, the prices and quantities must differ. TL;DR:

Yes, location matters. But ...

The extent to which the two factors differ is subject to debate. How separated are dating markets? How much does the composition of traders in each market differ?

The smart trader doesn't care about these questions though. That person simply does both of the below to the most profitable extent:

1) Increasing their own market value, and,
2) Finding/creating the most separated dating market with the most favorable composition of competitors and customers.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Thoughts on Going from Approach Machine to Intermediate

Check out this short TED talk from female model Cameron Russell:

This made me think of a few things relevant to the London Daygame Model, in my efforts to transition from approach machine to intermediate:

1) Telling an attractive girl she's attractive is like telling a lottery winner he's rich. There's no point doing it. That's why most London Daygame Models have you say in the opener, at most, "you look really nice." It just explains to her why you stopped her. Commenting about something she DOES that is attractive - like walking like a model, or wearing crazy-high heels - is different, because she didn't just win the genetic lottery on that.

2) There's a reason why the attraction/vibe and rapport phases exist in the London Daygame Model. As a beginner and an approach machine, you're tempted to think these are just buttons you press to get girls interested in you. But girls aren't robots. They can probably sense when you're just going through the motions. No, the point is:

The attraction/vibe and rapport phases exist for you and the girl to screen each other for ... guess what? Attraction/vibe and rapport!

In fact, the whole London Daygame Model is one big screening process for you and the girl:

Capture - screening for physical attraction
Attraction/vibe - screening for emotional attraction
Rapport - screening for mental attraction
Seduction - screening for sexual attraction

I think to go from approach machine to intermediate, I need to see this process as enjoyable, like opening an endless supply of Christmas presents to find what I want, instead of viewing it as a bunch of interviews-where-I-make-assumptions-instead-of-questions.

As a side note (and also as a convenient segue to my next point), notice how I keep saying you and the girl, not just you. Like it or not, the girl is screening you too, so if she's not into you on all of the above, you're out. Don't believe the marketing hype that says you can get any girl. But don't despair, that brings me to my next point.

3) Beauty isn't as rare as you think. When I first heard about the video above, my first thought was, "Cameron Russell? That sounds like a male movie director's name. Who's Cameron Russell?" Even after seeing the video, I doubt I'll associate the name with the face. My guess is you won't associate the two either. They'll probably just blend inside your brain with all the other fashion models you've had almost no choice but be exposed to in the media. In fact, the exception here is that if you remember her, it'll probably be as, "that model that gave that TED talk," which has nothing to do with her beauty.

Daygame also starts to convince you of this point. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, or you've set your standards high (likely as a subconscious avoidance trap), you'll find yourself attracted to seemingly endless amounts of girls as you go about your life. Not all of them, and not all equally, don't get me wrong, but more than what you thought. Before you get into Daygame, your conscious mind isn't trained to look for them. You actually don't "see" them. Only in special circumstances (for example, in the media, at a pool/beach party, at a bar/club, or if she's so attractive your DNA overrides you) does your mind acknowledge them. Hence why most guys act as if beauty is rare.*

Bringing it back to my attempt to go from approach machine to intermediate, and taking the above to its next logical step, my guess is my sticking point is this:

While I no longer see beauty as rare, I still see attracting it as rare.

I cringed inside when I wrote the second half of that sentence. Why? It's needy. But my guess is this hurdle will only be resolved like the other ones: daygaming, processing feedback, and daygaming some more, until I have enough reference experiences to prove to myself that attracting beauty isn't rare, it just requires finesse, or social muscle memory.

* Subpoint: One could argue that beauty is getting rarer over time, due to factors such as increasing obesity, but that's for another post.