From The Social Lifestyle
Having talked to a couple of new guys in the community and being reminded of the time when I first stepped foot into game, I recognize a lot of the similar potholes in the road to mastering the art of game. The theories being taught have evolved over time, and in a good direction as well. However what puts me off is how guys like to talk down on older theories (i.e., Mystery Method) and how they don't work at all as if female psychology has somehow changed over the last decade or so.
I hear this almost invariably, "I don't believe in PUAs or routine-based game. It's all about being yourself and being natural when approaching the girl." And the guy saying this always does so with a smug, better-than-everything sort of tone. They think they found the new cutting edge in game and are the only ones in on it. Guess what? Natural game has been around for a long time. And almost every one that I've met in the past three years of game all tell me the same thing.
What's more ironic is how these guys then approach a girl with a full on direct opener "Hi, you're cute. I had to say hi" with absolutely zero social acuity. I'd admit I used to do that as well. I guess we all have to go through that phase. But that was after having gone through a year or so of camping at retail outlets, asking girls for opinions. To me, there is a certain process to follow that a lot of the new guys to game are missing out.
Game is really all about how "normal" and sociable you can be, while projecting to the girl subtly that you are a sexworthy man. Most guys start off in game with an underdeveloped social ability, as I did. So starting out indirect helped me in three ways.
Build A Strong Foundation
If you watch a lot of the coaches who are really good, you'll realize that good game is really layering sexual intent OVER a social interaction. When I started out, I was scared of even talking to strangers, let alone pick them up. Indirect openers allowed me to build a solid foundation: realizing that girls aren't that scary, learning how to small talk, listen, riff off conversational threads, spot micro-expressions, and a whole host of other things. It is only when I could hold my own in a social interaction, that I could effectively overlay sexual intent.
The problem today is that a lot of guys are taught to go direct from the start. It appeals to the "magic pill" mentality that a lot of newbies crave. Use this line and girls will be attracted to you. That together with the approach machine mantra, what these coaches are basically doing is just playing the numbers game. With enough approaches, any fucking line works. I've seen guys who, with zero social savvy whatsoever, approaching like fifty sets in a day and ending up with nothing but flaky numbers--if they even get any. Then they go home and rest, with nary a debrief, and start over the next day. It's reckless, haphazard, and foolish. It's like taking a M249, taking a deep breath, kicking the door down, eyes shut and just spraying in some general direction hoping to hit your target. You're bound to kill a couple of guys, but once you're out of ammo, you're done.
Sniping, however, is more methodical, calculated, and efficient. Of course, there are days where you have to arm yourself with an XM1014 shotgun and burst down sets (also known as, number farming), but even then, there is a method to the madness. A sort of finesse that newer guys aren't able to grasp when all they learn from the start is how to do the one-shot-hail-Mary-I-think-you're-cute opener.
You'll realize that guys who start out with game this way are still unable to function normally in regular social situations, it's like an on or off switch for them and once it's off they're back to their old selves--weird and unsociable. That is why I would advice newbies to really start from the ground up. I understand the lure of direct openers; it feels like a new superpower--running up to girls and telling them they're gorgeous with no immediate repercussions. But behind all the smokes and mirrors, flash game is has no substance behind it. It might work in the club, but definitely not on the streets. A good day game approach looks like two people just talking and having a fun time to the untrained eye. The seduction happens below the surface.
Which brings me to the next point...
Shows Social Savvy
After having approached
thousands hundreds of girls, and having been rejected by a lot of them, I realized one thing: the best openers are those that fall in between direct and indirect. Or what we call, Plausibly Deniable Direct.
Any one with a bit of bravado can walk up and tell a girl she's cute. Coaches will tell you that direct openers project confidence, but I would beg to differ. Straight up direct openers are the game version of a poker player who calls all in every single round, no matter what he has in his hand, and prays that no one calls his bluff. While this may work from time to time, once the girl calls your bluff, you've essentially lost every thing.
Women communicate on two levels: one is the superficial verbal level (i.e., words), and beneath that is the sub-communication (i.e., euphemisms, non-verbals, sarcasm). When you open with a plausibly deniable direct opener, you are sub-communicating to her that you have social savvy. The whole conversation operates on a "you know that I know that you know that I know..." frame, and she covertly complies or rejects you on that level. All these require calibration and ability to read and size a person up, which comes from first building a strong foundation of social normality.
You have to build the foundation with indirect openers, overlay it with the design that is direct openers, then finish it all up with plausibly deniable direct openers. Maybe there is a next level of openers that I am not able to recognize yet that the advanced guys are doing, but for now, realize that no one is above the process. If you just skip ahead of learning process, you'll end up having to backtrack every once in a while to learn something that you should have already learned earlier on.
Like I mentioned, there's no point in trying to overwhelm the girl with superficial bravado. They're not stupid. It may work on the less socially adept girls, or on yes girls. But where the real game is played--with the maybe girls--this sort of fizzy clown game might get her attention, but once the bubble bursts, she will leave and not want to see you ever again. I've been stuck in that phase and had to work hard to get rid of the habit (sometimes I still fall back into it). It's not easy. Direct game is addictive. You just need to do as many approaches and you'll hit one yes girl invariably. But it is not efficient. And it is even more rare that the yes girl is going to be the type of girl you really want in your life.
Girls generally are emotional and not logical. Guys know this but they don't understand it and know how to use it. Going direct is communicating with her logical brain. It's not softened and not deniable. And unless your presence gives her the tingles, that is, if you're good looking--which most guys doing game don't have this advantage--going direct will harm your game. Now she has to logically decide on the spot, and you're a stranger so the answer is no. Whereas if you soften the direct opener with a tease or a joke, now she can take it better and you are giving her good emotions without it being a logical "choose now" decision.
Control The Frame Of The Interaction
The problem with straight up direct openers is that you've basically conveyed to her that you are sold, before even getting to know her or anything about her. And you are expecting her to be sold on the first impression as well. Unless she's a yes girl, this will hardly ever work.
When you go direct, she knows she's got you. Assuming she's attractive, since you approached her, she probably gets checked out, approached, or validated by men from the moment she walks out her house. You're no different. Going direct only reinforces that reality. Sure, you may say that most guys don't approach her and that by going direct you are standing out. But like I said, bravado is easily differentiated from confidence. You project that you like her, and she doesn't even have to do anything. You're just one of the guys who maybe managed to gather his balls and talk to her, but mentally she puts you in a box with every other chump.
Plausible Deniable Direct on the other hand projects to her that you are intrigued but not sold. That this is a dance where the both of you are sizing each other up. You decide whether you want to pursue, and she decides whether she will let you. It is all subtle, and beneath the surface. Girls enjoy the dance as much as men do--maybe even more.
But all in all, it allows you to easily set the frame such that she has to invest into the interaction if she is equally intrigued. A direct opener doesn't give you that edge from the get-go, you don't stand out. It shows that you don't "get it" (in both senses of the term). And once you start from a place of lower value, it's an uphill battle. That's why most guys fumble when talking to high value attractive women, because they set themselves up for failure from the start.
P.S. This article is merely my opinion on an observation I made. I am not shitting on any dating coaches out there. This is not a competition as to who is better. Every one has their own styles and methods and teachings. What I am saying is that it is important to differentiate the signal from the noise. Flash game doesn't mean good game. Just because a girl is standing in front of a guy and is talking to him doesn't make him good at game. The devil is in the details.