Read a book.
The game, anything by David DeAngelo etc
Tried and tested "techniques" PROVEN to work on attracting women.
Confidence, unpredictable, funny
All you need.
[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]
Read a book.
The game, anything by David DeAngelo etc
Tried and tested "techniques" PROVEN to work on attracting women.
Confidence, unpredictable, funny
All you need.
Read a book.
The game, anything by David DeAngelo etc
Tried and tested "techniques" PROVEN to work on attracting women.
Confidence, unpredictable, funny
All you need.
[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]
This is a funny thread...
I think the slap in the face is just a myth lol. How many of you ACTUALLY got slapped in the face by a girl? And why? Be honest
In America, we don't get slapped by girls. Instead we get slapped by lawsuits...
The problem I'm having with self proclaimed PUAs are that the "science" goes to their head. It's like a kid in psych 101, they think they understand the world by hardly scratching the surface. I've asked multiple times for any scientific research done on the topics the "PUAs" on this forum are claiming to understand. So far nothing. They believe in the validity of a book written by random people.
But that's a different battle. What I'm concerned with is the arrogance that goes along with their "knowledge". The claim that women process information differently than men is astounding - and extremely sexist. If you don't understand these things you shouldn't speak about these things. Women do not think differently and you cannot solve for them like you can an equation. These are the ideas being expressed in this thread that irritate the hell out of me.
Being a PUA is a self-improvement. Much like a self-help book it means that you have a problem, you're the socially inept person. There's a difference between wanting to improve yourself and being arrogant enough to think you can generalize an entire gender.
The claim that women process information differently than men is astounding - and extremely sexist. If you don't understand these things you shouldn't speak about these things. Women do not think differently and you cannot solve for them like you can an equation.
Hello Everyone!!
So...I saw this video of Criss Angel in the Ellen Degeneres Show...and I saw that he let her pick a card and show it to the audience and then guess it...how did he do that!!?...Ok I am kidding...
The reason this video called my attention is that he told her that if he find her card, she must give him a kiss...then he guesses the card (obviously) and then Ellen got near to kiss him in the cheek and he quickly turned around and kiss her in her lips...
So...I have tried this in the past..and it was great!!...since I´ve been reading some dating books and other stuff I went for it and I gotta say!, it does gives you a boost in your magic, since you are more confident and increases the mistery and charmingness (does this word even exist?) to previously unexpected levels...
My point is...We shouldn´t be afraid to be a little bit womanizers...since I think it´s part of being a magician. somebody that is not afraid to do what he likes and be different and cocky and funny...since it´s our job to be an extremely likable person and be atractive to girls...not because the magic, but because we combine that feeling of mistery and confidence to achieve what others cannot...
Now...I am not saying that you should ask for kisses left and right, but that you should not be afraid to go for it...also read dating advice and about the psychology of attrcction and how to be a cool guy...magic is not only tricks and theory and patter...
for those who are curious..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlujE_8iDm8&feature=related
If you are a naturally charming, funny, and good looking person, and the girl and mood is right, it isn't difficult. But not everyone is made this way.
Vega, I did read the whole thread, I'm many things but not stupid. And no I didn't miss the point of the thread, you, in simplest terms advised everyone to behave like Angel and use a charmless trick as some form of confidence booster around women. The rest of the thread about PUA was just rediculous. If you want to be a "pick up artist" then be one, just don't try and use it as a legitimate argument for being a good magician. The technique worked for angel, I've also seen David Stone do it as well as hundreds of desperate students trying to get their leg over. I'm simply saying don't blur the line. If you wanted to make a post on confidence then make one, and use the criss thing as a small example, don't create a whole thread around how clever Criss Angel is for using a tacky move.
I for one have tested the material in the books that I have read nad it indeed works. They aren't like "do this do that", they actually explain to you why the things work with FACTS.
I agree, women doesn't think different than us, on the other hand, they do process the information diferently, because of their presets and basis as women.
Again, what FACTS? I'm a psychology major and a communications minor. I've heard these arguments before in most of my classes but nobody has been able to produce so much as a half decent scientific study done. So how are you defining a "fact"? I know most of the leading theories on human communication and I haven't come across anything that you guys are claiming have been backed up with evidence.
The things you guys are describing can be explained away with the placebo effect. Much the same way someone takes a sugar pill and feels better or religious healing works. I'm not saying you're gullible. Everyone is subject to the placebo effect. What I'm asking is for actual proof of these claims. So far someone who's simply self-confident can replicate everything a PUA can do without spending money on these books/"techniques".
Just a quick note...charm, funny can be learned by anyone...and about the looks..women are very less interested in looks than everybody thinks...
I'm looking for evidence that one could find when discussing things like social proof. So far what's been discussed can be explained by the placebo effect, a biased statistical example, or outside influence. The claims are far too definitive than any theory would ever be able to suggest. Added that these people claiming these things show little to no knowledge of basic human biology. Specifically claims that women process information different than men do. Big difference between process and filter. Even then, it's not gender specific.