In the following guest post, Alek Novy dismantles "game" once again. In particular, he is responding to the claim that you can become more attractive by changing a few minor things. For instance, Mystery and Love Systems want to tell you that you have to approach from a 45 degree angle. Others tell you to pepper your language with "NLP anchors", and whatnot. The number of bullshit ideas in the community is endless.
The concept of "creating attraction" is fraudulent as demonstrated by science. I've argued and proven this over in length, I won't have time to argue now (I have a life, so no time). But basically, you can become more attractive in general by
- Adding muscle, removing fat
- Getting plastic surgery
- Getting status in a given circle/community
- Making lots of friends and raising your social status
However, becoming more attractive to one specific chick doesn't work since it involves:
- Personal compatibility (you could try to fake it, but you don't read thoughts, so you don't even know what to fake)
- Being her type (genetic matching displayed through facial shape, skin type, body ratios, unique smell signature of your individual body etc)
You can become a more attractive person (scientifically validated to making a significant difference, go lose 50 pounds and tell me how many more dates you get, same with getting an expensive car).
You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a "different way" and suddenly get drastically different results. You will still get roughly the same amount of yes responses per 100 chicks. No game believer has ever shown to get a yes per 100 chicks asked more often than a control subject (the control would be average beta-guy game by your terminology).
You can learn how to get laid more often, but that doesn't have anything to do with "creating attraction through walking, talking and acting differently" (the fradulent concept that all game is based on).
So I said that it is possible to learn how to get laid more, right? What is it that you "learn" when you learn how to get laid more? Oh, just how to
- meet more hot women
- ask for sex more often
As for improving your ratio? (how to get more yes-es per 100 attempts)? That's simple too... It boils down to
- identifying which chicks are likely to say yes to you
- asking in a way that doesn't scare women away.
That's pretty much it.
For example I've quadrupled the amount of lays I get during this past year. All it involved was simply building a life where I meet and am friends/acquintances with more super-hot women than you could ever even "open" doing cold-approaching. I literally am friends with hundreds of hot women (models, tv personalities, etc etc)... But that all falls under how to be rich and influental and well-connected and "how to network and build social status", not "game". Though I'm sure a game guru is about to claim to have invented networking skills any day now (I'm sure Dale Carnegie stole his ideas from a game blogger).
Asking for sex requires either balls or social intelligence. You could either ask every woman if she's down to fuck outright (experiencing a ton of rejection) or you could learn how to test and tell which chicks are likely to say yes, and only ask the hottest leads to come over to your place (pretty much what I do).
That's it. A PUAtard might chime in and go "Durr, my favorite PUA teaches us about IOIs too, and he also talks about how to network!" or "A guru once told me to join the gym!" But that's not the point! Game is not defined by what it shares with other disciplines, what defines game is its unique claims. Yes, one of the 52,456 PUA methods might also teach you to for example make lots of female friends - but that's not game, that's common sense. The game part is where he the guru claims that by standing differently or constructing sentences differently or communicating differently you will cause the woman to desire your cock more than otherwise. This is the fraudulent part. Get it?
The unique claim of game is that you can "create attraction" by merely displaying or acting out certain traits (not possessing them, merely acting them out). But this claim is without basis.