Sunday, January 3, 2016

"So what's the strategy here? Pretend you're not a nerd?"

This is a follow up to the post "Reader Question: How does a nerdy introvert meet hot women?", which led to a pretty good discussion. Unfortunately, my original suspicion only got reaffirmed, namely that the person asking this question is only looking for a quick fix. Instead of trying to change himself, so that people around him would react differently to him, he seems to have a hard time letting go of the idea that with a few cosmetic fixes all problems will be gone. This was perfectly captured in reader "smashthestate" asking,

"So what's the strategy here? Pretend you're not a nerd?"

Let that sink in for a moment, as it points toward a very fundamental issue.

Almost by definition, if you are a nerd, women will not find you interesting. Of course, she might be friendly towards you so that she can copy your homework, or seek you out once she has hit the wall, and all the alphas she had been lusting after ignore her, but that's probably not what you want.

Instead, the fundamental issue is that if you want to embrace your nerdy side, you will also have to embrace the very real possibility that you will only ever get sex if you directly pay for it. Indirectly, every guy pays for sex, in some way or another, but that is be a different issue. Thus, if you are a nerd, and want to have women in your life, you will have to make a simple decision and decide how much of yourself you want to change. Of course, nobody is forcing you to change your personality to get laid --- a lot of the very smartest people, men who have built Western society, were hardly the greatest womanizers.

Even today, those with the greatest academic potential are hardly those who get laid the most. I'm now merely guessing, but I am reasonably certain that if you asked, say, the top 50 or top 100, or possibly every competitor at a genuine nerd Woodstock event like the International Mathematical Olympiad, how many women they have had sex with (there are very few women at those events, if I'm informed correctly), you would probably get to hear rather modest numbers. A significant number may even blush when you bring up the topic sex, but let's not be too facetious. Those guys make a choice. In many cases, arguably, the choice has also been made by their parents, who have been pushing their kids towards academic excellence. Concretely, they sacrifice a significant amount of time in order to excel in one very narrow field. Without such people, we would still live in caves.

But what has all of this to do with some guy who wants to play video games all day long? It really does not matter what kind of nerdy activity we are talking about: if you would rather get your dick sucked than leveling up your avatar, you will have to make a choice. Further, you have to want to make a change to your life. If you feel very comfortable where you are, and think that it would be nice if some chick rode you occasionally, but it does not bother you all that much, then chances are that you will simply stay where you are, and keep shooting guys on your screen, or proving theorems.

I'm not in the least saying that every nerd should drop his maths books, quit programming, or trash his PlayStation. Do whatever you want that makes you happy. However, if you want to get laid, you may need to make some fundamental changes to your life. Now, if all you do is playing video games in order to while away your evenings, then you may get to the point where you realize that you would not have to sacrifice all that much. On the other hand, if you are in a cutthroat environment where up-or-out is the norm and you really need to sacrifice a few years or a decade, then giving up this chance, just for pussy, may not be worth it. We have been talking about extremes. Conversely, this means that if you are a regular (heterosexual) Joe, without any nerdy interests, you probably have no good reason keeping up routines and maintaining behaviors that sabotage your chances with the opposite sex.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)


  1. "Instead, the fundamental issue is that if you want to embrace your nerdy side, you will also have to embrace the very real possibility that you will only ever get sex if you directly pay for it."
    I've met people who loves Star Wars and nerdy shit. But they also get laid. Why? Because they're both:
    a.) Handsome
    b.) Confident and passionate
    My humble opinion is that some lonely and frustrated guys get into those nerdy hobbies because they weren't successful with girls at the first place. Other guys who had some success with women but get sucked by this kind of hobbies become socially alienated, just like as any workaholic or married man gets socially alienated.
    Also, many of them don't have much to offer to a lot of girls. If they want to meet more girls, they should start improving themselves, getting physically fit, expanding their interests and hobbies, and a little bit grooming isn't bad either.
    Problem is, just like you said, most of them are lazy and just want a quick fix. That's how PUA's got rich at first place. They're too much in their heads and don't realize that the problem isn't the girls or the society. Even if is that the problem, they can't change it, so they must adapt or give up. The problem are themselves, their lack of experience and the fact that they aren't in touch with their own sexuality/they're afraid of women's sexuality.
    Pretending doesn't work because it doesn't feel real. They just need to gain confidence, not by scoring chicks, but by accomplishing goals, and they also need to gain a lot of self respect.

    1. Thanks for this comment. I don't think it's as clear-cut as you say, but it's certainly the case that some guys pick nerdy hobbies because of deficiencies in their social lives. The converse also holds: I do think that good-looking/popular girls and guys, but girls much more than guys, can end up not developing their personality much. That does not mean that fat chicks necessarily have great personalities, though.

    2. "The converse also holds: I do think that good-looking/popular girls and guys, but girls much more than guys, can end up not developing their personality much."
      A lot of people I know constantly tell me that I'm a handsome man. But I grew up with a very overbearing, restrictive and conservative grandmother, so I never develeoped my confidence. I missed so many chances to have sex with girls, some were particularly aggravating. Being attractive is nice, but without confidence is useless. When an ugly and obnoxious guy is delusional about his chances with girls, is amusing or annoying. When a handsome, witty and intelligent man can't be successful with women because of his insecurities, is quite jarring.

    3. i think confidence is a contextual thing, confidence in what?
      your confidence is based on past experience.

      if you fuck whokers, you will be confident in fucking whokers, you can do it, and whokers are women so there are transfer.
      of course if you fuck one bitch, then i will be confident fucking only her, but if you fuck different whokers, the hottest ones, and different places and maybe some audience, and more then one at a time(u need money for this), you will be pretty confident and comfortable around girls, like male porn stars. you see, you can fake it. choose a path that gareentees results. but if you look like shit this confidence will be fake and will be broken apart vs girls who judge u only by looks, but if you are rich and they know it, then all good.

  2. Time and effort are generally underrated when advice is dispense. If you spent your teens/early 20s avoiding interaction with people due to anti-social hobbies, it's wishful thinking you can skip the "awkward" phase and go straight into "smooth." Even with the right hobbies, you can't just un-nerd yourself and fake it. You need to interact with people and depending on how socially deficient you are, it may take years.

    1. Yes, that's why the right way to socialize is doing something you really enjoy (besides Warhammer 40K) and you can share with others. Physical exercing is also a great way to get both confidence and meeting other people, not just girls.
      PUA's tried to un-nerd boys the wrong, weird way, forcing them into awkward social situations like cold approaching. A more socially calibrated guy realizes that cold approaching is bullshit and a tactic of bad sellers. For example: when I was younger, I was pretty attracted to the PUA rhethorics, but I never applied their tactics and teachings becauses I was savvy enough to realize how weird is to hit girls out of the blue. After I lost a lot of weight, now I can see girls eyeing me out very frequently. I still lack confidence to approach girls and escalate, as most girls I've dated approached me first. Warm approaches (when a girl sends you subtle or not-so-subtle signals) are the way. And how you get warm approaches? Being attractive and being social. Being attractive raises the chances to get more girls to like you, and being social raises the chances to... just meeting more girls. If you aren't social, you aren't going to meet a lot of girls. If you aren't very attractive, you aren't going to attract a lot of girls (I said "a lot" because it maybe will attract a few).

      "You need to interact with people and depending on how socially deficient you are, it may take years."
      It also depends if the guy really wants to change for good and he's motivated, or he's just doing it on a whim.

  3. I'm finally taking up some coding and other skills to become more employable. I think it will take at least a year before I can land a job with that specific skillset. Maybe it's not as competitive as academics or the math olympiad, but i feel like with some good time management I could still improve socially and expand my circle while working on looks. I think even those nerds would maybe get more laid if they knew or simply cared enough to work more on their looks and have connections with various social circles. Then again I might be grossly underestimating the time effort needed for these activities

  4. Sorry I wanted to ask another question.

    "Thus, if you are a nerd, and want to have women in your life, you will have to make a simple decision and decide how much of yourself you want to change"

    What exactly should one change about himself for that particular goal? I hoped I would be intelligent enough to dismiss women for good (like Tesla did), but I'm not that smart sadly. It seems that I don't have to care about women at all if I am occupied, but if I get in a situation when I run into girls that I think I have a chance with and am attracted to I become needy and imagine sex/romantic scenarios. So I guess I'm not really above that stuff like I'm supposed to be

    Honestly I don't even care so much about being a nerd, just smart. You can be smart and not be a nerd, right?

    1. Former nerd here.

      I will suggest two actionable items here.
      1) Get in good shape if you aren't already. Putting on 10 lbs of muscle, and losing 10 lbs of fat can do more for you than you can imagine right now

      2) Make it a point to go out at least 2-3 times a week where you meet people who aren't nerds. It doesn't matter what the hobby / activity is. Don't care too much about the hobby at the beginning, and it also doesn't matter if people there are mostly guys. Point is to start becoming more social. Once you start going out regularly, and develop better social skills, dating aspect of your life will automatically fall in place.

      If you are socially deficient, you will have to put in some effort. Depending upon the situation, major changes in results might take a couple of years. However, I guarantee it's totally worth it. And not just with women, but in every area of your life.

      In fact, as most nerds (me included) tend to care a lot about their professional lives, investing this time is almost guaranteed to pay off handsomely in your career and for you to distinguish yourself from most other nerds. You become someone who is very good at tech stuff + good at people, which works really well in the workplace.

    2. "What exactly should one change about himself for that particular goal?"

      1. Social skills
      Being able to hold a conversation, reading social stuations and people's moods and signals. There are TONS of books on this, so just visit your library or favorite torrent tracker.

      2. Looks
      Dress according to current fashion. Groom your beard and style your hair. Don't be fat (don't eat too many calories.) Have enough muscle that you don't look frail and weak (do strength training, but not necessarily 6 days a week like a bodybuilder.)

      3. Confidence with women
      This comes from hanging out with women, especially beautiful girls. Once you've gotten used to speaking to them without throwing up out of nervousness, you can flirt with them. If you're too scared to hit on a hot chick, start out by fucking plain looking girls and slowly work your way up by hitting on hotter and hotter chicks.

    3. Research the difference between "geek & nerd"

    4. "What exactly should one change about himself for that particular goal?"
      Never expect other to change for you. Besides that, we had say what you should do like... thousands of times in this blog.

      "You can be smart and not be a nerd, right?"
      Yes, but that's not the point.
      The best you can do is being yourself. The problem is that now that cheesy (but true) piece of advice has been distorted by the hivemind. "Being yourself" doesn't mean "Look at me, I'm ugly, I'm awkward, I'm a douche, but I'm beautiful as I am, and you must love me as I am because I DESERVE IT!".
      And that is FUCKING BULLSHIT
      Being yourself means not to be ashamed of what you are, and also trying to be better than before. Your hobbies, your passions... There's nothing to be ashamed if you're a nerd. Even if you want girls, you can still be a nerd, but you don't need to shove your interests in others (that's a mistake that a lot of people, not only nerds, make when meeting others). If you have high standards for women, you should also raise the standards for yourself.

    5. There are a ton of great and insightful comments here and a lot of actionable advice.

  5. It irks me when people put engineer or mathematician in the same nerd category as someone who plays video games whole day.

    "Almost by definition, if you are a nerd, women will not find you interesting."
    Overweight Star Wars neckbeard fanboy and a well-built, well-dressed guy studying math can be both considered nerds yet the two are vastly different.

    In my experience there is enough girls who prefer intellectual type of guy over entertainer type(actor, athlete etc...)

    1. Let's not overgeneralize. You may not like the comparison, but I think the same personality trait is at work, no matter what you focus on. Somebody plays Dota2, which is a highly complex game, and somebody else finds a different outlet and does a PhD in algebraic structures. Both have in common that they are able to focus on a topic for a long time. This may sound facetious to you, but you have to keep in mind that the average person has a hard time focusing on anything for more than a few minutes.

      By the way, I don't think you'll find a serious maths student who also works out like crazy and spends an hour a day in front of the mirror.

    2. Interestingly enough, an ability to focus on something while being able to exclude other areas of life is a trait associated with autism.

      I once did a test on autism spectrum, and despite ticking most social questions as non-autistic people would... Because I ticked the "obsession with studying problems", "obsession with single minded focus on things etc" (and similar), it put me as borderline autistic. (that means just a few points away from being autistic).

      In fact, those traits are what define autism as different than say social anxiety. A socially anxious, but non-autistic, non-asperger person will not obsessively collect WOW cards or invent systems to solve unsolved math issues.

      You can learn social skills. You can't make yourself neurotypical though.

    3. So what if I am obsessed with sex lol. Am I a sex nerd ? (I get laid.)

    4. It's a specific kind of obsession.

      If you say you're obsessed with eating cake, then you're really a cake-a-holic, not a "cake nerd".

      If you say you're obsessed with cakes, and that means you have spreadsheets categorizing cake recipes by type, country of origin, foaminess, and then track them using charts and formulas to cross-analyze them... that would make you a "cake nerd".

      Same with sex. If you're "obsessed with having sex", then you're a sexaholic, otherwise known as a "heterosexual male".

      If you have a library with every conceivable paper and anthropological book on sexual norms, sexual initiation across cultures, and sort these using problem-solving algorithms... that would make you a "sex nerd"... so yes there is such a thing.

      Also from what I've read, something is nerdy as well if its "non-mainstream". So cakes and sex are obviously mainstream, so to be a "cake nerd" you have to do the whole systematizing, spreadsheeting thing to become a "cake nerd".

      But if its non-mainstream "uncool" "societally unapproved" hobby, all it takes is just engaging a lot in it. So that's why playing WOW for 4 hours a day is nerdy. But playing football for 4 hours a day is not nerdy.

    5. also those question types of test, are dubious i guess? wouldn't trust or give a shit what some paper and conclusion of it on me, based of me filling American questions?
      its irrelevant if some one define you as such.

  6. I am not sure that one may be justified in generally referring to people who are deeply interested in science as "nerds" (unless they take it to a comical extreme, like Sheldon character in Big Bang Theory). If one's chosen pursuit is in a somewhat niche disciple, say physics, this should not be confused with activities like going to Star Wars fan convention.

    True "nerds" and oddballs in academia do indeed exist. Many of them. But majority of others are completely normal people.

    I am speaking as a guy who is currently working towards a PhD in maths, by the way. Interestingly, I noticed that mathematics actually attracts a broad spectrum of guys, from many walks of life and with all kinds of interests outside of maths.

    1. Normal people don't have "all kinds of interests". It's easy to become part of a group and forget what normal life is actually like. Joe and Jane Average, though, are not going to study maths or any other STEM field. Quite frankly, the difference in mental ability between an IQ 100 and an IQ 120+ person, which is about what you should have as a minimum to make it through an engineering degree, is astounding.

    2. What I meant is that people who are involved in a scientific discipline, are certainly not a homogeneous bunch. Obviously these subjects require huge amount of time and dedication but this can also be said for other occupations, such as investment banking. However, I might be differing from you in that I consider people with above-average intelligence apriori - no matter what social/work sphere they are in.

      Also, as you know, it doesn't take one hour in front of a mirror for a guy to "dress well". All one needs are several go-to, well-put together outfits. Not that difficult. Working out a couple of times a week is more than enough to develop a well-above average body (if one is in a "normal" shape to start with).

    3. The difference between investment banking and science is that the former is very monotone, particularly at the entry-level. People don't do it for the intellectual challenge, but for the money. You shouldn't only focus on people of above average intelligence because then you will, obviously, ignore the vast majority. An IQ of 120 is probably is in the lower end in STEM fields, but with such an IQ one would already be in the top 10% of the population.

      Our interpretations of "dressing well" seem to differ. It's a label I use rather rarely. For instance, I once knew an Italian graduate student who was impeccably well dressed and always looked great. He most certainly spend a lot more time on his appearance than all his fellow students.

      Lastly, I find it amusing that in terms of physical appearance above average is good enough, while when it comes to IQ, you dismiss the bottom 90%. Interestingly, though, you'll have a lot more success with women with a top 10% physique (and basically an arbitrary IQ), than with a top !0% IQ and a median physique. On a side note, barely above average arguably still means fat in quite a few countries.

    4. Sleazy, regarding physical appearance, the point is that one does not have to train 7 days a week to develop a great physique, and it would likely lead to injuries and burn-out. Quite a few studies have shown that if one follows a good diet and a reasonably intense training routine (say 2/3 times per week), that is more than sufficient to have a great body. I have confirmed this for myself over the years. I obtained a lot more benefit from a focused, minimal, heavy- weight training routine twice per week, sometimes even once, (an hour each), with a few ocassional ashtanga yoga sessions here and there, rather than when I was spending more time at the gym, spreading my energy thinly on all kinds of exercises that only hindered the ability to actually gauge real progress.

      Secondly, dressing "very well" can only take one so far. It will get you some looks, for sure, but natural physical attractiveness is always more important than what clothes you are wearing, and that's what determines if a chick hooks up with you.

      Another thing. If a guy is of above-average intelligence, then why would he choose to associate in his spare time with people who are not up to his intellectual standard?

    5. Sleazy could you please expand upon this:

      "Interestingly, though, you'll have a lot more success with women with a top 10% physique (and basically an arbitrary IQ), than with a top !0% IQ and a median physique."

      I personally have noticed that I actually do better the hotter the girl (I work as the doorman to a bar, and only sporadically hit on girls elsewhere, so the atmosphere may be atypical), which makes me question people who talk about so-called "leagues". I just always thought it to be because those girls have more confidence, and I come across as more genuine.

      But I don't want to just discount the importance of matching IQ. I've never taken an IQ test, but going off my SAT scores my IQ is around 130. I personally feel much more attracted to intelligent women, and it feels much more "right" when I'm interacting with them. I feel that I don't do very well with dumb girls (especially dumb but not slutty girls), just because I quickly become very unattracted to them and basically just want to use them for massively dissapointing sex.

      What I'm trying to say is that I feel for myself that actively seeking out intelligent women appears to be a fairly good strategy for being successful with women, as well as what I want anyway, so I'm curious if I'm misinterpreting you post to be encouraging focusing solely on physical hotness.

    6. You do better with hotter girls because you are more interested in banging them. Also, intelligence is a broad spectrum. You don't just have IQ130+ types and imbeciles. Do keep in mind that women are underrepresented at both ends of the IQ scale. If you were aiming for only highly intelligent women, you simply will not find enough, particularly, once you take sexual attraction into account.

    7. Anon above regarding physical workout: you are right that a relatively moderate workout routine can have great effects. However, this already puts you easily in the top 10% of males.

      About your "above average intelligence" comment: Depending on how far above average you are, you will run into the problem that women are, as I said before, underrepresented at both ends of the IQ spectrum. In addition, only very few people are at those two ends to begin with. Thus, if you are a IQ130+ guy and think your girls need to be similarly intelligent, and good-looking, you will have an extremely hard time finding prospective partners.

    8. I'm the opposite. I found out that intelligent women are fucking pain in the ass and have a lot of mental issues compared to dumb women. I don't think mother nature made women to be intelligent.

    9. To Aaron:

      That's kind of what I was getting at. I'm better with hotter girls because I want to bang them more. I'm also better with more intelligent girls because I want to bang them more. If she doesn't get my dick hard it doesn't matter of course, but when did I say otherwise?

      To the Anon right above:
      I have found quite the opposite. Of course, as Sleazy mentioned, intelligence is not an on-off switch. Having said that, the dumber the girl the more irritating I find them. I have no idea why you associate high intelligence with mental issues, since that hasn't even been remotely close to my lived experience. If you think you'll avoid craziness by dating stupid women then reality will beat you down pretty hard.

    10. I think it's more than just liking them more. I get much better AIs, responses and smoother interactions from hotter girls. But then I observe them from a far, and notice they're nicer to everyone in general (not just me).

      It might just be my culture, but over here hotter girls are just nicer. The average girls are more frustrated (about not being hot I guess) and have a permanent scowl on their face.

      The worst are the "almost hot" girls, who seem to be frustrated with almost being hot. They're the frustrated 7s who dress as if they were 10s and put on a ton of makeup. It's the kind RSD idiots and PUAs bang in clubs, and then refer to as "10s". I don't know any genuine model-type girls that frequent clubs. They're too busy with high-level events. Most clubs are filled with tight-jeans-pornstar-like-makeup-sevens. You can see them in RSD videos.

      I very rarely meet a rude, nasty, mean hot girl. And by that I mean genuine model-type-girls who actually make money from modelling or their looks.

      I'm not saying that hot girls sleep with everyone. But they do tend to give more chances and be more forgiving. I've never known a really hot girl who creep shames awkward or non-hot men.

      It might just be my culture/part of the world, but I'm surprised anytime I hear that supposedly "hot girls are mean" from PUAs. It's either a cultular difference, or these PUAs are talking about "7s with a ton of makeup and tight jeans". From what I've seen with RSD, it's probably this case.

    11. Interestingly enough, I just stumbled on a youtube comment (@ molyneux video) that gives me a further distinction.

      - In the video Stefan is telling guys "oh just go for plain janes, and you'll avoid nasty man-bashing women".

      - A lot of us in the comments are like "no dude, we haven't found plain janes to be nicer to men"

      - But then this commenter cleared it up in a way I hadn't considered:

      While it's true that women who rate lower on the attractiveness scale do seem to up-regulate their promiscuity in order to compensate for a lack of attractiveness, a lot of those women usually do everything in their power to make themselves anything but "plain Jane".

      I think if you took what he said, emphasizing the fact that if such women were sensible, and didn't oversexualize themselves in both behavior and appearance, you'd see outcomes manifest similar to what Stefan is describing.

      At least that's how I interpret it.

      "plain jane" doesn't necessarily refer to their default attractiveness, as we all know many average women will go to extreme lengths to make themselves in terms of appearance, hit above their weight class.

      He may well be referring to women who aren't psychotically appearance conscious, which I would agree with. The woman that isn't stands a higher likelihood of being more reasonable and less insecure, and more inclined toward behavior as Stef describes.


      That totally resonated with me. So when I say "sevens are a lot meaner and a lot more difficult than tens"... I am referring to sevens who put on a ton of effort trying to "appear ten". We have a bias to notice the seven in a tight skirt over the seven without a tight skirt (the plain jane) - so we think she's representative of sevens in general.

      When you see PUAs talk about how "hot girls are used to getting hit on bla bla" "you have pass s-tests and be super-duper arrogant in your approach to bust through bla bla" ---> they're talking about these "sevens who are desperately trying to punch out of league".

      The reason such a seven is mean to you (a male seven) - is because she has an obsession with getting a male 10 (hence proving to herself and everyone she's higher than she really is). Which is why she gets so mad when the non-popular kid tries to be friendly with her.

      To link it back to the overall topic, and not let myself get too out of topic

      Both a plain-jane seven and ten (popular girl) are likely to be nice to a nerd, despite him being a nerd. It the girls who have a complex about proving they're hotter and more popular than they are - who despise and crap on nerds.

      *-> Notice I said "be nice to", not "fall in love with", in case some troll wanders in and misinterprets it.

    12. Unfortunately I actually don't frequent clubs very often. I work at a bar so I basically get enough of that type of stuff as it is. With that being said, I definitely see some quite beautiful women at the bar. Lots of 6's dressed like 9's, but definitely some gorgeous women.

      I've found that I assumed all the hot girls around me had much more interesting lives than they actually had, so when you say that there aren't any super hot girls in clubs it doesn't really fit with my experience perfectly. Then again, I would never come into contact with any girls who have "high-end" lifestyles anyway, so I think our experiences may be a little warped.

      It does raise the biggest issue with PUA that I've had since I started actually hitting on women, which is that nobody talks about the hardest part: actually finding ones you're attracted to. I live in Vancouver, and there are tons of hot girls here, but even still, in the wintertime it's actually pretty hard to meet girls. I'm far from bragging about how picky I am, but there are plenty of nights at the bar, especially when it's not terribly busy, where there is not a single hot enough girl there. Don't get me wrong, some nights there are 10+, especially when it's busy, but as much as I like hitting on strangers I can't help but appreciate the wisdom of actually putting in extra effort to meet girls through lifestyle as opposed to one-off things.

    13. Infinite disclaimersJanuary 9, 2016 at 5:07 AM

      Less attractive girls are more likely to be bitchy especially if they work on their appearance?

      Are guys working on their foundations also "punching out of their league"?

    14. Let me re-clarify. I'm not saying there are "no hot girls in clubs at all". I'm saying there are "no super-hot girls who make (or can make) money off of their looks that also frequent clubs". I've never met any. All the ones I know are always at different events, afterwork parties, lounge bars*. They might go to a nightclub 2-3 times a YEAR.

      --I have this lounge bar that I go to, it probably has like a dozen high-status (eights-nines-tens) each time they have something. No nightclub I've been to has that many high-status chicks in one night (even the eights are daughters of rich fathers and invest a lot in their looks). I know the owners of this lounge, have some "Status" there due to having at least 10 tables waving at me to greet me, including the manager. My return-on-investment when going to this place is "one night in this lounge = more return on effort than 30 nights in a club".

      Yeah there's a ton of sevens with bangable bodies and tight clothes in clubs. They're hot.* Even the occasional eight. Nines ans tens who go having a "clubbing lifestyle"? Not so much.

      (for reference point, I find the top 100 pornstars to be "sevens")

    15. Are guys working on their foundations also "punching out of their league"?

      Putting on sluttier makeup and tighter jeans is not the female equivalent of "working on your foundations"

      The reason its called foundations is because it actually improves your overall mate value in a meaningful way. That is... you actually change your league.

    16. "especially if they work on their appearance?"

      There's a meaningful way of working on your appearance. Joining a gym, improving your diet, improving your skin health... Look at the transformation of any fitness(yoga) model chick, her before and afters. This a meaningful change in your appearance.

      Girls who tone their body (improve skin health etc) genuinely change their league.

      Girls who think they will nab a higher status guy just by wearing longer heels, more drastic makeup and tighter clothes don't (they just get taken advantage of more often by players who see them as naive and desperate)...


      At this point you're like "but doesn't Aaron advise guys to improve their fashion"... Yes, the key word is improve... go from a very bland-self that most guys have to an elegant and flattering dress style.

      I'm talking about girls going out of their way to dress slutty. They feel its the only way they can compete with hotter girls, its the only thing they can offer to a higher status guy - easier sex.

    17. Actually I used to work in this shop (not gender specific) in a very wealthy suburb around Vancouver, and I think I may well have seen the hottest girls there. Mostly it was old people who came in, but occasionally there would be some girl 23-15 who would walk in with parents or alone. It could take days or even weeks between seeing them but probably the highest level of beauty I have ever seen*. It was crazy how even some of the women ~30 were truly beautiful.

      *Note, I'm not saying that every girl was beautiful.

      Working at a bar I definitely see way more girls overall. I also see more hot girls. Not sure I see more incredibly hot girls, but they definitely show up every now and then.

    18. "they definitely show up every now and then." - that's when they're making one of their (respective) 2-3 visits a year.

      Let me take this back to the practical for anyone reading this and needing practical advice though

      The take home advice guys is...

      1) Don't listen to any PUAs claiming to regularly bang a bunch of tens in clubs... (yet admitting 1 in 30 success ratios)... You'd need 6 months of regular clubbing to even FIND 30 tens that are outside of the secluded VIP area. These PUAs are banging sevens with super-tight clothing and pornstar-like-makeup. Just watch their "pulling videos".

      2) The best thing you can do to get hotter women (nerd or not) is

      A) Work on your foundations
      B) Keep acquiring status
      C) Keep acquiring access to better and better fishing ponds and growing your status in each pond

      This ABC is far more important than "fishing technique" in and of itself (game = fishing technique). Some dude in a comment recently complained about guys needing perfect escalation ability.

      You don't need "perfect escalation ability to get in the top 5% of men. You just need to escalate, period. If you have your ABCs (from aaron's minimal game book) and you just ALWAYS MAKE A MOVE, you get in the top 5% - guaranteed.

      I might be guilty of "promoting" this idea of "perfect escalation ability", but that's due to people not noting the context. Whenever I've talked about "perfect escalation ability" I am usually arguing with feminist trolls. The kind of troll who claims guys only get rejected because they're rapey, creepy losers. The kind of feminist who believes that all female signalling is super-clear and super-unambigious and a man should know exactly which woman to approach where and to make which move at what time.

      UNLESS you are in the top 0.01% of men, you HAVE TO get rejected to get a lot of lays, because you will make the wrong move at the wrong time on the wrong girl, more often than you get it right. It's part of the deal. It's not your fault, its women who specialize in ambiguous signalling. Either accept rejection as part of the package (to get laid more with hotter girls), or accept waiting for a low two who will throw herself at you unambiguously.

      You only need "perfect escalation ability" to get in the top 0.01% of men (in terms of laycounts) while suffering almost no rejection and having every lay be almost effortless. Like my friend who walks into a party, knows exactly which chick to approach, exactly what to say, and then be fingering her in 5 minutes. That's 0.01% ability, not 5% ability.

    19. Alek Novy is spot-on as usual.

      I found out that sluts (the "almost hot sevens" from Alek) aren't actually looking for sex, but actually are seeking validation. Fucking a guy out of her league = ego boost.

      So yeah, funnily, sex with sluts is actually bad, while sex with "normal" girls is pretty good.

    20. Yes, spot on by Master Novy. But just to clarify what "0.01%" really boils down to: Since women control every single step along the way and all you can really "actively do", is fucking it up big time, the 0.01%-guy simply KNOWS a) how to place himself into the most conducive environment and b) play the best role within that environment in order for women to choose him (i.e. open all doors for him). Since he c) also knows what women REALLY want in a man (basically a willing host letting himself getting voluntarily parasited, "good sex" being a nice addendum to that) and d) can conciously/intuitively decipher female subcommunication. Furthermore he can be sure to be "successfull" at virtually every approach/interaction within that specific because of b) — him embodying the best role for that very purpose and that very environment. Of course, that breakdown is nothing else but MINIMAL GAME & CLUB GAME, i. e. the "Sleazy method". But what this actually is, is fully adjusting yourself to and tuning into the female biological imperitive. For EVERY interaction with a woman to be "successful" the man HAS to concede to the woman, one way or another and no matter the extent. In that regard we men have NO CHOICE.

      Yes, hot & preferrably young girls can be really sweet. Pussy feels great, fucking is pretty healthy as well and the sense of male validation from such an encounter can be mindboggling (and rightly so.... even though this drug quickly wears off, which is also part of the entire design btw.)

      So all of this good stuff is nice but I assume no man in his right mind would want to immolate himself just for enjoying good, young pussy, since there us other, bigger fish to fry in life.

      So, particularly for Mr. 0.01% it is also part of the truth, that — casting all "romantic veils" aside — most women are basically the worst hassle & impediment to a man's life and resources. This is because energy always flows from the man towards the woman. It's the intended purpose of the man to get depleted and the system itself is gynocentric — it's been designed that way by the fucking Demiurgos (... Gnostics, anyone? ;) Unfortunately the bit of fucking (the attraction naturally wears off anyway) and her sweet body (wears off over time as well) cannot really compensate for that male loss. So even Mr. 0.01% of the sexual ivy league, along his proficiency at any rate needs to have elaborate damage control techniques in place and/or enough dough to "properly" accomodate most of the pussies he were graciously allowed to use (to mentally normal women even "good sex" is never a value unto it$elf) or he needs to have nerves of steel and good ways to hide from child support payments, false rape charges and law enforcement in general.

      The point I'm trying to make here is: the real "game" is and has been played ever since is by women. Don't think you can "fool" or "handle" or "outfox" them. If you do you will find yourself seriously mistaken. Now the set-up of all those "security backup mechanisms" is even more labour-intensive than getting efficiently "top notch" with chix, so I as a moment of consolation to any nerd or guy who feels he's living below his sexual potential: in a way you can actually be glad and thankful for many girls "rejecting" you. The fate of getting yourself imprisoned and elaborately used up for purposes mostly alien to your male nature is not that pleasant. If you don't know, what men & wome like that might look like, just go to your next upcoming high-school reunion and take a good look at the guys & girls who are married and have kids. I'd wager in 90% of those cases you wouldn't ever wish to end up like that... ;)

  7. Getting UnrealisticJanuary 4, 2016 at 7:52 PM

    I think we are at the point where men need to think of better solutions than telling nerds to not be so nerdy, especially if you have to:

    -have money
    -be good looking
    -be social
    -be confident (while having little or no experience)
    -have a good fashion sense
    -escalate perfectly

    to get laid.

    I can't shake the feeling that almost every sector of the how-to-get-girls internet is descriptive of those who succeed, not effectively prescriptive.

    What's really being said behind the advice is if you are taller than average, young, healthier than average, making good money or have potential to do so, can socialize well, then you'll get some babes. Probably.

    That is not exactly news. Those people who are like that or who can easily stretch into that have usually had a good run when they're young.

    (though the number of guys like the supposedly handsome but unconfident guy posting above seem to be legion and growing)

    I also notice a lot of the writers on pick-up seem very disenchanted these days, or have settled in long-term relationships. That says something about the cost involved in this process, even for the lucky ones.

  8. "if you have to:
    -have money
    -be good looking
    -be social
    -be confident (while having little or no experience)
    -have a good fashion sense
    -escalate perfectly
    to get laid."
    Well, you don't have to be good looking, rich AND social to get laid. One out of three is good enough. But if you have two or three of these traits, you will get laid MORE.

    If a man lacks confidence because he lacks experience, the solution is very simple: he can get experience by putting himself in these social/romantic situations. He will be nervous and make mistakes at first, but he will learn. And then the confidence will come.

    A good fashion sense is something you learn through studying other people, magazines and blogs. NOBODY is born with this, everybody learns from role models like movie/rock stars or fashion designers.

    "Escalate perfectly"? No, ou just need to escalate good enough. And sometimes a girl will say "I'm not gonna do this with you" and leave. That's OK. It's a numbers game, not like brain surgery were every attempt must succeed.

    "I can't shake the feeling that almost every sector of the how-to-get-girls internet is descriptive of those who succeed, not effectively prescriptive."
    I can see how you would think that if you are foolish enough to believe that some people are born with social skills, fashion sense, big biceps, money and experience, and that those who are born without these attributes cannot acquire them. There ARE effective prescriptions for acquiring these attributes, if you care to look for them. Of course, you have to put in the work.

    "the number of guys like the supposedly handsome but unconfident guy posting above seem to be legion and growing"
    Evolution has programmed us to take the path of least resistance to fulfill our urges. Staying home with porn and video games is easier and more comfortable than dating women and befriending other men through IRL activities. The growing number of guys who spend their youth sucking on the digital teat should not be surprised that they are unprepared for the real world. But as I mentioned above, they can make it if they are willing to WORK for it.

    "I also notice a lot of the writers on pick-up seem very disenchanted these days, or have settled in long-term relationships."
    Many pick-up writers were scam-artists who just stopped pretending that they were wildly succesful casanovas. Others who actually got laid with hundreds of women simply got tired of it. Once you have banged enough chicks to "prove your manhood", forming a stable relationship with one provider of sexual services is more practical than constantly being "on the hunt". One vagina is different from the other - but not THAT different.

    1. "If a man lacks confidence because he lacks experience, the solution is very simple: he can get experience by putting himself in these social/romantic situations. He will be nervous and make mistakes at first, but he will learn. And then the confidence will come."
      Hmm, I disagree a little bit with you here. Sure, some guys are insecure about their lack of experience, but they can muster courage to talk to lots of girl and, with every small success, they can gain confidence. But others aren't that confident or daring.
      My opinion is that, before you even try to start putting yourself in these situations, you must gain confidence in other ways, and start being comfortable in your own skin. In my country, a very common place romantic advice to lonely people is that when you stop looking for a girlfriend, you'll find her. That doesn't mean "be passive and just wait for her to appear", but it means "focus on yourself". Many guys try to get a girlfriend or get laid a lot of times just to prove themselves to others, or they want to feel "loved" by someone, it doesn't matter if she doesn't even know his name. That's wrong. They got it backwards. Most of the guys I know I get laid are both handsome and passionate about something. One is a somewhat famous tv/cinema/music critic, other is a college football quarterback, and other is a martial artist. Some are more handsome than others, but all of them are quite confident and they REALLY LOVE their hobbies and passions. They don't give a shit about others, and they don't waste their lives comparing themselves to other guys. And also, they don't give a damn about their "lay count", girls are just the icing of their lives.
      tl;dr Some guys just lack confidence at romance and seduction, but they're ok in other things, so they just need experience. But others lack confidence in a lot of things. So they need to work a lot of things, and get their act together before they even start to approach women.

    2. I think you have a good point there.

      When I wrote that "he can get experience by putting himself in these social/romantic situations" I meant the "social" part as any interaction where strangers are spending time with you because of mutual interest rather than professional obligation. Meaning you have to maintain their interest or they'll excuse themselves and leave. Being passionate and knowledgable about a hobby or field of expertise makes you more interesting to other people, so obviously that's a huge help.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. As an Aspie nerd who had to pay (as in cold, hard cash) for his first two (and so far, only) sexual experiences, I can definitely attest to this. Here's two very important I've learned about women in life:

    1. Despite their many claims otherwise, women don't really like or desire sex. Not even with attractive guys. What women care about is status, and they want a man who'll help boost it. Hence why even low-status women still refuse to mate with low-status males even though the latter would be more than eager to do so; there's just simply to be gained by the former.

    2. This partly ties to number 1, but women judge men through very, and I mean VERY objective standards. Unlike men, who have very varied sexual tastes and prefferences (my personal theory is that men are genetically conditioned to be attracted to the type of women with whom they have the most positive interactions in their early childhood years), women are extremely homogeneous in terms of what they find attractive. I think this homogeneity is what's at the root of most men's dating woes; if you're not attractive to one girl, chances are you won't be attractive to the next one either, or the one after that.

    1. Faulkner, you make a few sweeping assertions about women, and men too, but you present no data to support these ideas. Unless, of course we are going to consider your vast personal experience, which is limited to having sex with two prostitutes. I think you need a lot more experience to test your life lessons.

    2. Clarke hit this one on the head. You do not have enough experience to form accurate opinions. Furthermore, I have no idea how you'd come to the conclusion that women only care about status. You're banging prostitutes and you believe that women only care about status. That's a weird conclusion.

    3. I get laid and I think he is right.

      First thing all my girlfriends do when we start the relationship is : telling absolutely everyone + putting pictures of us everywhere on social media. Like : "look, this hot guy is my property and not yours !!"

      Also, slutty friends of my girlfriends always send pictures of the new guy they are fucking (for casual) (my god, one of these cunt sent a fucking dick pic), basically saying : "look, I'm awesome, I got fucked by this hot guy, my life is so wonderful" (and then they complain about guys not wanting to stay around). Just like guys on pick-up forums btw.

      Girls enjoy attention-whoring much more than sex.

    4. Two things.

      1) Regardless of the true importance of status, concluding that "status is all that women care about", as Faulkner did, is ridiculous after you've just paid for sex. Why not conclude that money is all that women care about? Probably because that would be instantly recognized as a product of a skewed sample.

      2) Status does actually matter quite a bit. It also matters to men. Just because women love to show off their "catches", doesn't mean they don't actually enjoy fucking them. Feminists have borderline stated that men are only attracted to hot, young, thin girls because they want their trophy wife to impress other men. Could it possibly be that men get some enjoyment both out of being seen together with hot girls and also fucking them? Of course.

    5. For the record, I'm not saying that you have had some bizarre experiences with women. Quite the opposite. I just don't agree with your conclusion.

      I personally have bragged about fucking a hot girl - who never actually made me cum (I didn't tell anybody about the last part). The sex was terrible, but since she was really hot it was seen as a precious wonderful thing that must have happened to me because I am so awesome/lucky. That doesn't mean that I enjoy attention-whoring more than actual sex, not even close.

      Actually I may be talking past you here. Are you saying that even your girlfriends enjoyed bragging about you more than the sex? I fully agree that many one night stands are awful, and pursued for ego reasons. For me, relationship sex is something I'd do even if people thought less of me for it. I can't say my one and only girlfriend felt differently.

    6. "For me, relationship sex is something I'd do even if people thought less of me for it. I can't say my one and only girlfriend felt differently."

      Because you're a man, and as such, sex for you is more important than social status. Ironically, for that very same reason, society will not shame or look down on you for having sex.

      "Feminists have borderline stated that men are only attracted to hot, young, thin girls because they want their trophy wife to impress other men."

      It's called projection. Feminists are masters of it.

  11. Aaron Sleazy, one comment--while the vast majority of nerds will never be alphas (unless they happen to be tall, dark, and handsome nerds)--some nerds are able to attract a high-quality wife. Maybe she's not a "ten" physically, but if she sincerely loves him and is faithful and is genuinely supportive of his nerdly passions, isn't he successful with women because he got what he needed?

  12. Man,

    I read Alek Novy's point on autism.

    1)I used to obssessively collect banknotes.

    2)Obssessively taking pictures and draw, and then study Chinese lamellar armour's revolution.

    3)Anything about history attracts my attention.

    Not so much Math though, can't force myself, I am not naturally good at it, but can improve through constant practices.

    Math is, strangely, more meaningful in History anyway.

    1. There's a positive to this autistic-trait. If you direct it toward hobbies that women find attractive... its a positive.

      For example if you get obsessed about guitar technique, you can actually use that to acquire status in rock-circles and get laid from that.

      I've been fortunate that I've been attracted to "girly hobbies", or things that attract lots of women. And that autistic streak of mine has been directed at becoming obsessive at those hobbies.

      The mental energy I project from the obsession is itself off-putting (so I have to conciously project a mellow vibe to counteract the obsessive tense face), but the skill I acquire IS attractive and eventually wins me status in those skills/hobbies/areas.

    2. "There's a positive to this autistic-trait. If you direct it toward hobbies that women find attractive... its a positive."

      That very rarely happens though. Autists, high-functioning or otherwise, are almost always physically very clumsy. The type of skills girls find attractive all require a degree of physical skill most autists simply do not possess, whether it's raw physical strength and endurance or fine motor skills.

    3. I assume status in some particular social niche can be boosted by
      -artistic skill

      Being borderline-autistic can give you an edge in mastering artistic skill or some career skill applicable to business/industry.

      But it also puts you at a huge disadvantage when trying to relate to other people.

      Is the status you acquired in your social niche largely derived from your artistic skill and money or did you also have to learn to become popular and charismatic?

    4. Faulkner Opined as Such:
      That very rarely happens though. Autists, high-functioning or otherwise, are almost always physically very clumsy. The type of skills girls find attractive all require a degree of physical skill most autists simply do not possess, whether it's raw physical strength and endurance or fine motor skills.

      Disclaimer: Notice when I say "this autistic trait"... I am not talking about ACTUAL autistic people... Just that one trait in specific (the obsessive systematizing trait). This trait happens to be present in "borderline (almost) autistic people". A borderline autistic is someone that's on the high-end of normal (a few points away from where autism starts). I'll refer to these guys as "clumsy and cerebral" from here on...


      With that out of the way, You're extremely correct, but extremely wrong as well.

      FIRST - not "all" hobbies that attract women require motor skills. Sure, yoga and dancing and crossfit and playing guitars (instruments) all require fine motor skills. But photography, language courses, cooking clubs, design, arts do not.

      SECOND - even if you look at the "physical hobbies", you're both right and wrong as well...

      When I originally joined hobbies like this, you're right, I was the worst in any group, because these hobbies are dominated by social people with fine motor skills.

      Scientifically speaking, one of the chemicals (can't remember which, whether gaba or oxytocin) is responsible for both fine social skills and fine motor skills. So it's no wonder that naturally social people are also naturals at hobbies that require fine motor skills, and vice-versa.

      Here's the part where you're wrong - it's not a "sentence to failure", it just means you have a few extra steps to get to baseline. If the average guy has to pass 25 steps to get to "being good at it", the "clumsy" dude has to pass 30 steps. (i.e. he's starting 5 steps below the average guy)

      HERE'S THE DEAL THOUGH, once you pass those 5 steps and force yourself through them, you get to 'baseline' and start where normal people would start... nobody will know (except the people who saw you when you were struggling to get from minus five to zero)

      Look at me, when I originally joined different hobbies (that require fine motor skills) I was so bad and clumsy, I was ashamed of even showing up in any hobby group of that kind.

      **So I used a secret form of leverage to bust through that issue...**

      I used money to buy private training. That way I could get to (and above) baseline without public embarrassment. I could THEN join group settings without shame as just another normal dude. No one would have guessed otherwise.

      You can do this with any area. If you're too awkward to practice socializing and approaching for example... buy some (therapy/coaching) to get you to "normal guy levels"... after that it will be much easier and less awkward to work on further improvements yourself.

      Things like guitar lessons are mostly done in private anyway. And again, after you get to normal guy motor skills on that guitar, from then on your learning curve is similar to "normal guys".

      Getting from level zero to level 25 (being good at it), is actually similar for a "clumsy" dude, and a "natural" dude.

      You know why? Because whatever the clumsy dude lacks in talent, he makes up for in left-brain power, ability to focus for long hours and obsess about optimizing and mastering data related to the skillset.

    5. Is the status you acquired in your social niche largely derived from your artistic skill and money or did you also have to learn to become popular and charismatic?

      I got my first 15-20 lays while I was still "creepy as fuck". I leveraged money to buy status and skill.

      So I was basically the skilled, rich, buff high status dude who's also weird and asocial. Girls were weirded out and creeped out when I asked them for sex, but they still said yes.

      After this I spent a few years trying to build up social skills, charm and likeability. It only changed how many people want to be my friends, and made it easier to meet more women. But the actual ratios didn't change too much. The interactions are just smoother when I "turn on the charm"... but its not like I get 300% higher conversion rates or anything.

      Notice, this is in social circles, when girls can get to know your status and skill overtime, so lack of finesse isn't a big drawback. With cold-approaches & strangers its different and "not creeping people out" is a lot more important (i.e. it kills conversion ratios since they never even let you past your first blunder, whereas social circle girls tolerate your blunders).

    6. I have always wondered if certain types are just better at detecting female signals than others. For my part, I would say my capability of doing this before having any sexual experience is already not bad, the problem is knowing how to make a move (in general) due to a deficit in social skills and relating to others.

      That being said, misunderstanding her intention can be quite common if you are not that socially experienced. Again, the role of experience here cannot be stressed enough.

      Another thing guys who are inexperienced need to learn is to make a bold move to identify her sexual availability. As soon as you can make a move in many common social situations, this becomes more important than just simply detecting signals. I don't like to waste times with girls who aren't available due to whatever reasons (at night, mostly logistics).

      Being smooth is just bullshit, especially when approaching strangers (girls you don't know on the street).

    7. I feel like the fear of not fitting in, or not belonging, is quite powerful. I know myself that I've always wanted to try dancing, but don't want to look like a retard/creep. It's a fairly strong natural impediment to starting a new hobby when you know that you don't belong. On top of that you are immediately introduced to a bunch of people who you don't know. On the flipside, feeling like you belong is pretty great.

      Real life example: I'm a blue belt in BJJ. I can basically walk into any club in the world and feel somewhat at home. On the other hand, it was a bit scary my first time walking into a gym, since it was an alien environment to me and I had no competence. I feel the same apprehension towards taking dancing classes. If I felt like I would actually be good at dancing (good enough to have fun), then I think I would probably feel the same way I do towards BJJ. Of course, I've been doing BJJ for over 3 years, but it really only took 2-3 classes before I became comfortable. Certainly less than 1 full month to feel like I "belong" at the gym.

      Second real life example: I used to play LAN games with the computer science club at my university. It wasn't particularly difficult for me to go to the first one, partly because I knew some people there, but mostly because I was (unfortunately) very good at video games through experience. Even so, when I learnt we were playing Wolfenstein I felt a bit uncomfortable, since I didn't want to suck and "let everybody down". Seems kind of absurd now in retrospect, but the pattern is pretty obvious.

      To Alec, aside from private lessons can you detail other ways in which you successfully and smoothly (hopefully) inserted yourself into various niches? Additionally, how much money have you spent towards these goals?

    8. Your BJJ example is pretty perfect, because that's how it works everywhere. You do it for x time feeling anxious and out of place, once you pass a threshold you can go into any similar venue in the world and feel "at home".

      Now in other hobbies it might not take "just 3 hours to acclimate". Because in those others you feel more out of place, more anxious and they might be more socially stressful (cool popular guys, hotter women etc)... That's where the private training comes in. It helps you handle the competency part, easing the process.

    9. I want to clarify that it took me 2-3 sessions to get comfortable going to that first gym only. It took about a month (~12 sessions) to feel like I really had a handle on things. At that point I could feel comfortable going to most gyms. Even now, at blue belt, I would feel not perfectly comfortable going to a top competition gym, even though I've competed at 5 separate tournaments. So to all guys getting into BJJ specifically, you're going to feel a bit out of place for a while, but it lessens every time. I hope you like getting strangled in the meantime.

      However, as far as getting laid goes, breaking through that initial high level of discomfort was all that mattered. Sure, if you can get to a super high level in BJJ (way more true for MMA), then you can bang a lot of girls through status/different opportunities, but for the most part you just meet them at the gym while training. If you're desperate not to have your first impression suck (yes, it is important), then get some private sessions. Since there is quite a bit of turnover in gyms, it doesn't matter as much as you think, so don't let it stop you from going if you're interested.

      Specifically to Alec,

      I touched on this above, but I've noticed that, within the MMA and BJJ communities respectively, having the status of Peer is critical. In other words, belonging is very important to getting laid with the girls in that group. However, once you get that, almost all that matters is looks, height, etcetera. It definitely helps to be an instructor, and the higher the belt the better, but it doesn't really matter as much as looks.

      That is, until you get quite a bit of status, and then it matters an enourmous amount. Some guy who fights in the UFC (even if just average) comes in to the gym and it's a big deal, and is more important than good looks for female attention. Same for a top competition guy in BJJ.

      To clarify, in MMA, if we assume that a UFC champion has 100% status, then a good semi-pro fighter only has around 1% status. The UFC champion has so much more benefit from status that I think it distorts regular guys impressions of how important status really is. Even within a gym, being a black belt is barely a benefit over being a blue belt, you have to actually go "all the way" to making status very important.

      So have you noticed this same general trend in other niches?

    10. So have you noticed this same general trend in other niches?

      We've also discussed this phenomenon from another perspective in the comments here. This phenomenon is why its better to focus on multiple things at once.

      Let's make this all nerdy, and use numbers and nerdy titles... to make for a clearer overview. Let's use a terminology like this.

      - Let's say that the top guy in a niche is a "king"... there are about 2-3 kings per niche ("masters" or "grandmasters" alternatively)

      - Let's say that there are also "officers" in the niche. These are guys who are established as having "peer" status in the niche as you say... now there might be 30-40 officers in a niche of a thousand people. These are people who are "intermediate" or "experts"... but not "masters"

      - At the same time, there are about 500 low-ranking guys. This seems to be true in every niche... there are always more newbies and casually uninterested people who don't have ambition to go above "experienced beginner" or "casual participant".

      Now, as you say... once you get to "expert" or "officer" rank... there isn't much additional benefit. You get the same benefits (in terms of attracting female attention) whether you're the lowest ranked or the highest ranked "officer".

      Now here's the irony... (arbitrary numbers to make a point)

      - It takes 100 points of effort to become the lowest ranked officer
      - It takes 2000 points of effort to become the highest ranked officer
      (but you get no additional benefits)
      - It takes 5000 points of effort to become a "king"

      The logical conclusion from this, in terms of ROI is - unless you plan on becoming a "king" - its better to become a low-ranking officer in multiple niches, then waste time on a single niche. Its better to be established as a peer in multiple things, than waste years only to get to "higher lever officer" and gain no additional benefits.

      This also applies in multiple foundations. Once you get to a top 10% physique, you've gotten most of the benefits. Getting to a top 7% physique is 10 times as hard, but offers no additional benefits. You only get additional benefits once you get to be a professional fitness model, which involves a ton more effort and stress.

      (again arbitrary numbers)

      Put another way. It's better to be a top 10% dude in several things... then to waste years trying to become a 0.1% guy in one thing.

    11. Put another way. It's better to be a top 10% dude in several things... then to waste years trying to become a 0.1% guy in one thing.

      I meant "*than to" (obviously)...

      ...But also, on another note... primarily its not multiple niches, but multiple traits. **

      Compare these two situations:

      Situation A
      - top 10% status (through technical ability) in the niche
      - top 10% physique
      - top 10% social skills, ability to work a room
      - top 10% ability to escalate, make moves, read signals, and send signals (i.e. flirting ability)

      Situation B

      - Being top 5% in a niche
      - Average physique
      - Average social skills
      - Average "flirting ability"

      Which is better?

      Obviously situation A will get you much better results. Here's the crazy thing though. Situation B takes a lot more effort and energy, despite giving worse results.

      When somebody is a 5%er is because they were trying for the top (0.01%) It's easy to get screwed over by trying to become a 0.01% er in something, and comes from being too tunnel-visioney in your strategy.

      "I'm going to become the number one most looked up to photographer in my city, and all the hobby photographer chicks will look up to me, love me and hit on me, so it won't matter that I have horrible fashion sense, a beer belly, can't approach them at the gatherings and seminars, and I can't make a move when they do finally show interest... because I'll become number one, and they'll do all the work"...

      That fantasy IS somewhat true - if you are number one, they will seek you out and do a lot of the work, and you won't need much of the other stuff...

      However, it takes a ton of work to become number 1 in something. It's much easier to become a top 10%er in all of the foundations COMBINED, than to become number one in a single thing.

    12. In a few words, in RPG language: having a skilled character with good all around stats is better than just minmaxing.

    13. Min-maxing in life is quite a gamble. In most settings, and strictly referring to 'regular people' who don't have an unfair competitive advantage (think height for NBA players, or a wealthy and well-connected family for a career in business), you will be much better off being an all-rounder than a specialist. Of course, if you are highly successful in your niche, you might question this advice, but this would be an instance of survivorship bias, because we never hear from those who min-maxed, focusing on one skill, where the gamble did not pay off. This applies to the job as well as to your private life. In fact, there is arguably no skill where you will be able to join the upper echelons without sacrificing a large part of your life for it.

    14. I've never heard of this minmaxing stuff. But it sounds like the ideal term to adopt from now on. It's very elegant.

      Also, the element of a "gamble" that Aaron focuses on is key. I think my metaphor above is faulty... I said something like this:

      - It takes 100 points of effort to become the lowest ranked officer
      - It takes 2000 points of effort to become the highest ranked officer
      (but you get no additional benefits)
      - It takes 5000 points of effort to become a "king"

      But this isn't a valid metaphor, because it implies the "top guy" (or top business in an industry, or top band in a music genre) won the top spot fairly, just by putting in "250% more effort"...

      But its not true in the real world - the real world doesn't reward effort fairly or linearly. If there are 3 "top status guys" (or bands, or businesses) in an industry or a niche or whatever... there are 250 guys who worked JUST AS HARD (or even harder) than the guys at top, but didn't get the benefit. Due to things such as connections, inborn talent, invisible (and hard to quantify) side-skills that help indirectly, and PURE LUCK.

      Blame hollywood and the media. The 250 don't make for a good story. And minmaxing truly is a gamble. Its not like "oh, i just didn't make the top" - you would have wasted 10-15-20 years of single-minded focus...

      This means you let every other area suffer. And then you wake up 20 years later and you're like "I screwed up". Those are 20 years I could have spent investing in 10 other things at the same time.

    15. This sounds like really powerful strategy for life.

      It seems that in any field/discipline there is a rule of diminishing return - the more effort you invest the lower payoff per unit of effort you get.

      So what Alek seems to be suggesting is to find different fields/disciplines which are functionally related(means they all help you attract women for example) and then distribute your effort evenly across those fields.
      This seems like a really smart way to maximize rate of return on effort.

      Trick is finding those fields which are functionally related and synergize with each other. As for getting women we already have the formula - body, social niche and money. Trick is to apply same reasoning to career, social life or any other aspect of your life which you want to improve.

    16. So... It's better to be that slightly physicaly fit amateur musician, who also has a knack for photography and cinema, loves practicing TKD, and also has a large social circle; than expending lots of hours in just one of those hobbies?

    17. Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

    18. there is another point to alek except for the distribution of many instead of one. is that after a certain level there is no point in flowing effort in it to get higher.

      got top 10 percent then your concern is to maintain it not get to the smaller top group after. that is easier it will be just
      repeat the resulted routine you have when top 10 percent.
      if you stop maintaining any of them you decline.
      but you will keep large part of it.

  13. Ironically "nerd" culture is getting huge, at least in the US...

    I get complimented all the time when I wear T shirts for video games like Gears of War and also heavy metal shirts. In fact all these obscure thrash bands I loved growing up are now idolized-it's strange. And I remember some tatt'd broad saying the skulls on my Forbidden t-shirt were awesome.

    also google Comic Con, you'll see broads dressed up Wonder Woman or other character where they can show off their clevage...

    1. The Big Bang Theory, the Nolan Batman Saga and the MCU films have turned the geek culture from a cultural ghetto into a comercial juggernaut. I find this quite amusing, as if you were open about your geeky personality a couple of years ago, you'd be shunned by society, or at least by a huge chunk of it. Being a nerd/geek meant being a social pariah.

    2. ^^Agree with the above comment. Also, with Android/Apple mobile app games like Candy Crush, etc., games are acceptable. It's funny that those mobile game users would call themselves gamers though...

    3. Hell, there is even a book out talking about living you life like a game. Neat idea, I must admit. The book is called Level up your life and the writer founded "nerdfitness".

    4. Relevant to the "nerd" label that is so fashionable these days:

    5. Nice vid, but jokes aside, the millenial culture turns every label into a buzzword. Yesterday was being "hipster", today is being a "nerd". Are the younger generations too shallow?

  14. It's so obvious but I will leave a note here:

    Whatever people might say, most don't understand the value of time. Time is just so precious that most smart "nerdy" should understand it. Investing times in social hobbies or academic pursues, or career improvements are great. This will even be much better for you since you already have that strong obssession with you.

    Spending years after years playing video games, surfing webs after webs (and imparing your concentrating ability in long term) is not the way to live your life.

    It's not a matter of changing your "nerdy" features yet, it's a matter of knowing what to invest times on, that's crucial.

    If you feel you are a useless nerdy piece of shit, you have a lot to figure out and work on.

    1. Spot on! TIME is everything.


    2. 'Tempus fugit' might be the more appropriate phrase. ;)

    3. … of course that's true as well! ;)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.