mASF post by "Maxwell Bond"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, November 11, 2004On 11/22/04 8:20:39 PM, finalD wrote:
Hey man -
Again, you gave a really detailed response. Some really good stuff in here. I
was about to re-read it before making a reply, but decided to comment as I read
through this for the second time.
So here I go...
>
>Overall, I'd like to advocate
>for a MIND-SET that adopts
>congruently a frame of plenty
>rather than scarcity. That
>frame
>will serve me, and most RAFCs,
>much better than the old one
>they
>used to hold, of scarcity.
Ok - I was thinking about this today, and I think you are right... better to
assume the more useful belief. However, the trick is to retain the more useful
belief while being realistic at the same time.
>
>But then again, even if you
>have that mindset, at some
>level
>there IS a scarce market going
>on. So you end
>up with a true competition
>among
>RAFCs and PUAs for a limited
>number of targets, such that
>the
>market itself determines that
>a hot chick is indeed scarce,
>and
>she can congruently behave
>that way, and y'er game is
>ruint.
Yeah, such as it is... the more positive belief would be, time to learn how to
AMOG better and I will learn many things while undertaking that process; or
time to learn how to open a large set without having to resort to opinion
openers.
The realistic viewpoint would be, logistics get fucked when there are a lot of
guys and that is a real drawback, and guys with game are harder to AMOG.
>
>And even if that's not your
>city -- hell, I live in a city
>that
>can be DEFINED as the CENTER
>of official pussy scarcity,
>smack
>in the middle of the Bible
>belt, where married women
>outnumber
>singles 6 to 1 by the time
>they're 23 years old (no lie)
LOL!
>So I do have to agree with a
>lot of descriptions, of how
>"the
>program" (term used in the
>technical sense that you know
>what
>the fuck I mean!) might
>actually be expanding too
>rapidly for
>its own good.
Here, I don't want to single any one program out, as there are actually TWO
programs here in SF... each of which offer valuable services to guys who need
it. I got my start by attending two such programs, so I can't knock any of
them.
I do wonder if the market can support the rate at which these programs need to
grow in order to be financially viable, and if too many are beginning to
proliferate... look at the tail end of any Cliff's List for an idea of how many
Lairs, guru's and products are beginning to emerge.
It's like the DeBoer's
>diamond cartel (no, not the
>diamonds-rocks-gold
>metaphor!), in
>which TRUE supply, and (more
>important) PERCEPTION of
>supply, is
>somehow controlled such that
>the buyers behave as though
>supply
>is quite limited. As we all
>know from intro to Econ 101,
>with
>static demand and very low
>supply, price goes ...
>
>Class?
>
>UP!
>
Nice metaphor, btw...
>Anyway, I'm not an economist.
>I find a lot of the
>supply-demand
>metaphor, and the presumptions
>of competition that they
>typically use, to be
>preposterous.
I think there is some use to this kind of metaphor, especially given that
courting and mating rituals have changed over the past 100 years in many ways,
throwing the balance of value back and forth between the sexes.
Also, historical events, such as World Wars, also have an effect and these get
played out in which values (patriarchal or matriarchal) have more currency.
Of course, the empowering belief is to feel that game is still game, and if
your game is good enough, it doesn't matter where your value is according to
the culture.
>
>For an example of choosing a
>frame that I can't necessarily
>defend, here's my take on
>evolutionary biology and the
>evolutionary psychology
>ensconced within it: Desmond
>Morris (a
>famous TV evo-bio dude)
>doesn't look like he gets laid
>a lot, so
>I don't want his advice. Har.
>That's IT. Really. Now, I can
>throw out a lot of blather
>about why I disagree with lots
>of
>speculations created by
>evo-bio, and it would take me
>a long
>long time to convince some
>scientists that my assertions
>aren't
>actually contrary to SCIENCE,
>just contrary to the
>CONCLUSIONS
>that certain SPECULATIVE
>experiments (that operate
>without the
>benefit of true experimental
>conditions) have come up with.
>And
>then I'd have to go off on
>each of the little specifics,
>and
>probably somewhere on this
>board or another, someone
>would have
>a counter-specific that would
>refute one of my points, and
>then
>eventually we'd all get
>detail-oriented.
Since you have already said that any counter arguments to your point above
would simply be book keeping, I will add this just for the sake of keeping a
detailed ledger:
If there are scientists who have sent men into outer space, but yet have never
set foot inside a rocket, let alone off this planet... I believe it entirely
possible that there are people who couldn't get laid to save their life, but
would still have valuable information regarding how other guys could get laid.
There, having put that down, I will move on...
>
>So I simply say, "It doesn't
>work for me. You can have it.
>I
>have no problem with you
>arguing with someone ELSE
>about the
>logical validity of certian
>minor points. I will be out
>getting
>laid while you're doing that.
>:)"
I figure that cavemen got laid without having to think about it, and really
smart guys have gotten laid BECAUSE they thought long and hard about it... so
therefore, it is irrelevant to the matter of simply getting laid... it neither
adds to, nor takes away from it.
If it helps you, use it... if it hurts you, drop it.
They want an occasion
>to do
>it, and a chance to do it
>without grief and risk and
>public
>censure, and in fact most guys
>are just like that, too.
I agree... sometimes half of the skill is managing to get them isolated as the
rest will take care of itself.
I
>believe we are all of us
>looking for the same things. I
>believe
>every interaction is its own
>microcosm, and is not
>intrinsically
>linked to other interactions
>in the same room, or the same
>city.
>I believe a "Zeitgeist" does
>not color my chances at
>getting
>laid, neither because of an
>increasing Puritanical strain
>in
>American politics (hell, even
>a Bostonian Catholic was
>trumpeting his God-directed
>protestantism!) or an
>overnumbering
>of workshop attendees. I just
>believe it. I don't really
>care if
>it's true or not. Who needs
>the truth when ya got pussy?
You know, you have convinced me up to a point... all those factors you
mentioned are irrelevant at a certain point... that point is determined by your
game. If your game is good enough, you will be able to take care of competition
and bad logistics. The empowering belief is that having more guys in the
community gives you access to information you wouldn't otherwise have... and if
there is increased competition, it gives you more incentive to better your
game.
You convinced me of that man!
I think that one point of mine still stands, however... with more guys getting
into the game and going out into the field, the bar DOES get raised. If you
happen to frequent the places with a higher volume of HB's in a major city, you
will have to learn to deal with bad logistics, you will probably have to learn
how to open sets without opinion openers or running a natural style game, you
will have to learn to AMOG... to run good game consistently, your skill level
will have to be better.
Hopefully, from such efforts and competition, you also, will be better for it.
- Maxwell
Any night of sarging, is a GOOD night of sarging!
|
