ross and david

[Fatal]

Alright so awhile ago I

got some of David DeAngelo's material and loved it. Now a few days ago I got ahold of Jeffries

materials.

The biggest points I seem to get are:
DD - Cocky and funny to get istinctual

attraction
RJ - Sensual verbal exploration to get a connection, which leads to an attraction

etc.

Now they both sound like fantastic methods. My question is basicly anyone experince results from

spesific methods better than others? Maybe just a general discussion on comparison.

But my main question

seems as if it would be the ultimate power is to combine the best parts of each into one. How would you combine

hardcore busting balls c&f with these more sensual sounding mental exploration tactics? I mean there's a lot of

stuff you can combine no problem, but the major core of them seem somewhat conflicting.

[Gegogi]

I find just being me to the

uttermost works best. Subsequently I get all the connections and female attention I can handle, sometimes too much,

and I end up wasting time on constant poon calls.

[seduceme]

Both methods are too focused on

one specific in the entire spectrum of intersexual behavior.

Thus you can probably figure out that youre

massively limited.

People do hook up without being cocky and funny or using words for an emotional

rollercoaster.

[esk6969]

I find just being

me to the uttermost works best. Subsequently I get all the connections and female attention I can handle, sometimes

too much, and I end up wasting time on constant poon calls.

Yes, but you seem to be a rather well put

together guy. There is a lot of discussion on this on the seduction sites. "Just be yourself" is advice that EVERY

guy has gotten on dating since the beginning of time. And, it's great advice if you are a likeable, dynamic,

interesting and sexy person, and can be a gentleman towards women without becoming a doormat. However, most of us

aren't 007. Most guys, lets face it, as "themselves" are DORKS. They need a little help, be it 'mones,

seduction-modelling behavior, or whatever.

What these discussions usually come down to is, yes, "be yourself",

but only if "yourself" is a self that's worth being. Or, put another way, don't just "be yourself", but rather

"be your BEST self you can be."

[TRock]

i'm not sure on the rj stuff

except for his confidance material. a buddy of mines has the home study course. i seen it, it's not worth it except

for the confidence and affirmation material. i'm an asshole and naturally cocky, just didn't know how to harness

it until david d. go with the style the fits your personality naturally. if you're guinuinely c&f it comes off as

charming and charismatic, think deion sanders and michael irvin.

[Gegogi]

"...Or, put another way,

don't just "be yourself", but rather "be your BEST self you can be."

I'm always looking for ways to

tweak myself, be it appearance, lifestyle, education, music or social skills. Once you stop growing, you begin

drifting downhill fast. However, I do it for myself, not for women or society at large. I've not felt a righteous

or pressing need to get help being me or expressing my desires. Of course if you're not sure who you are, a little

coaching may be in order.

[seduceme]

Be yourself applies if youre an

attractive person with attractive characteristics and traits.

It also rectifies the tryhard-syndrome alot of

guys seem to acquire, where theyre trying to be something they arent, thus coming off incongruent. Something

sociallyintelligent(read:women) pickup on easily.

If you gonna fake it, make sure you make it!

[SayIamU]

Can I get links to these

please?

thx
jc

[phersurf]

There is a lot

of discussion on this on the seduction sites. "Just be yourself" is advice that EVERY guy has gotten on dating

since the beginning of time. And, it's great advice if you are a likeable, dynamic, interesting and sexy person,

and can be a gentleman towards women without becoming a doormat. "

You've hit the nail on the

head!

Everyone tells you to be yourself. I have a cousin that is a natural (he's married now) and always had

women surounding him (even though he's just an OK looking guy). He was always telling me to "just be yourself". I

took his advice and proceded to have fewer girlfriends than I would have liked and I was always being a wussie (talk

about an attraction destroyer!) with the girlfriends I did have .

I tried RJ's stuff and it was only

minimally successful and I could not get it to sound natural.

Enter David DeAngelo! There is much more to

his material than just c & f, if you only have his Double Your Dating eBook you could get the impression that's

what it's all about. His material is based on the way "naturals" interact with women, evolution, biology and

sociology.

Would I still be hooking up without David D? Sure, but the quality and quantity has increased

since I've been using his stuff.

[seduceme]

RJ and Davids stuff stirs

emotions in girls, to be simple thats all its about.

If you can incite excitment, awe, intrigue, happiness,

sadness, anger in a girl and take her through an emotional rollercoaster through your actions and words she WILL be

attracted to you.

Like it or not but women are emotionallydriven creatures, ask any of them. They react to

the emotions they feel in the moment, and then try to throw in logic to rationalize it OR to backrationalize

afterwards with logic. They lie, not only to others but also to themselves in order to bear with the circumstances

they end up in thanks to their emotionally driven behavior.

[phersurf]

RJ and Davids

stuff stirs emotions in girls, to be simple thats all its about.

If you can incite excitment, awe, intrigue,

happiness, sadness, anger in a girl and take her through an emotional rollercoaster through your actions and words

she WILL be attracted to you.

Like it or not but women are emotionallydriven creatures, ask any of them.

They react to the emotions they feel in the moment, and then try to throw in logic to rationalize it OR to

backrationalize afterwards with logic. They lie, not only to others but also to themselves in order to bear with the

circumstances they end up in thanks to their emotionally driven behavior.

This is based on the

different ways attraction happens in men's and women's brains.

Men are attracted overwhelmingly by visual

cues. When men are shown photos of breautiful women, activity in the limbic system increases drastically. In fact,

men are so tuned into the visual cues of attractive women, that the activity in the limbic system increases even

before we are consciouce of seeing a beautiful woman.

When women are shown photos of good looking men, there

is much less activity in their limbic system because they aren't as attracted by purely visual cues. When they are

told some (made up) back ground story on these men; ie, they are rich, atheletes, musicians, artists, etc they have

much more limbic activity.


If you approach with the right attitude you can create attraction in women

becuase you're communicating in a way that stimulates a women's limbic system that goes beyond your physical

attractiveness. The right attitude is partly communicated by cocky & funny, but also that you're not impressed by

her looks, that you could care less what she thinks of you and if she doesn't want to be with you have much more on

your plate and she is missing out.

[Fatal]

Hmm all this makes sense, but what

are the best asspects of each and how do I get them to work together? Or is more based on the girl and yourself?

Also, ross's tactics seem more geared to meeting a girl/ really new relationship. DD's seem more for all.

[SayIamU]

links pleeease

[seduceme]

This is based

on the different ways attraction happens in men's and women's brains.

Men are attracted overwhelmingly by

visual cues. When men are shown photos of breautiful women, activity in the limbic system increases drastically. In

fact, men are so tuned into the visual cues of attractive women, that the activity in the limbic system increases

even before we are consciouce of seeing a beautiful woman.

When women are shown photos of good looking men,

there is much less activity in their limbic system because they aren't as attracted by purely visual cues. When

they are told some (made up) back ground story on these men; ie, they are rich, atheletes, musicians, artists, etc

they have much more limbic activity.


If you approach with the right attitude you can create attraction in

women becuase you're communicating in a way that stimulates a women's limbic system that goes beyond your physical

attractiveness. The right attitude is partly communicated by cocky & funny, but also that you're not impressed by

her looks, that you could care less what she thinks of you and if she doesn't want to be with you have much more on

your plate and she is missing out.

Problem is C&F(cocky and funny) is indirect as hell.
Sooner or

later(like it or not) youre going to have to go direct, if getting laid is your goal.
There are more subtle and

direct/general ways to build attraction before even approaching.

[TRock]

c&f is only indirect and direct as

you make it be. of course it'll never be direct as sharks "i like you" game. you can take the frame "damn i am hot

and you bow down to me because i am such a cool guy and i will have sex with you but i will play with you 1st".

dress really well and have cocky body language and you're good to go. it's easy to see it than to actually

describe it.

c&f is the way to go if you're not only interested in pick up, but having an attitude adjustment.

taking control of your life and living the way you want to and interacting with people in general. a lot of david d

stuff is inner game based and self improvement beyond women. you need to buy all of his products to "get it".

[Fatal]

I listened to some of his advanced

stuff, really good.

[seduceme]

Shark/razorjack's attitude is

the way to go.
Direct _is_ the way to go, lets face it, those who came up with indirect game are those who got

blown out, ran away and tried to come up with little schemes to get girls to like them. With direct its assumed they

already DO like you when you approach.

[TRock]

the best method is the method that

you like that gets you results.

[seduceme]

TRock subjectively yes,

generally no. The best method is the method that yeilds results for the broadest userbase.

I see alot of

guys on mASF who ditch ross, david mystery and the like and try out direct with great result.

[Holmes]

the best method is

the method that you like that gets you results.

That's the bottom line. Everyone's different.

(Again with the understatements!)

There's a grain of truth in both approaches, but I can't imagine using

either one verbatim.

Ross is funnier. Dave's more accessible. Meh. To me, their approaches are very

basically one and the same.

[TRock]

i'm not actaully against direct.

i'm direct in a way myself but still use c&f, push/pull, frame control when i'm doing my style of direct. i used

to be a semi natural. typical most popular guy in highschool but went to a big university and any semblance of game

i had got destroyed. guys that use direct don't like c&f, push/pull and all that stuff. i'm just saying they can

be incorporated into direct.


i don't really get this get every girl stuff. does that mean you're willing

to go from librarians to party girls? i don't think of pu as game where i have to beat every level. there's only 1

type of girl i like and that's the only type of girl i would attempt to pu.

[Fatal]

That's true, but ti doesn't hurt

to get more experience and test around with different types of people. I'm friends with almost ever genre of people

that I'm around. Albiet, I think it's funny classifying peopel by genres, but that's another story. There's punk

girls that I really dig, to SSSSHB prepy girls, to the athletic girls, to the nice generaly beautiful pretty girls.

the more the merrier. Why limit your choices? But if you spread the butter out too much, you end up running out and

getting less powerfull taste. So don't spread yourself thin with the important girls.

[seduceme]

Actually I enjoy trying to

pickup the unattainable. Getting laid is easy, so its more of a challenge when you come across the hard ones.

Besides you might meet a woman some day you find attractive and 'your taste' in terms of qualities and traits, BUT

there might be a catch. In anyway if youve got experience in those situations you'll _know_ what to do.

[a.k.a.]

It’s all chatter.
Humans are

hard-wired for sex. Lots and lots of sex.
Humans are also fascinated by the sound of their own chatter.


At best, the chatter coming from your mouth can momentarily break the chatter running through her brain — giving

nature time to work its magic.
If there’s no natural attraction, there’s no game. Period.



There’s a handful of “techniques” that facilitate natural attraction. Smiles, eye contact, kino, proximity ... These

have been discussed ad nauseum, and are probably instinctive to begin with.
Synthetic pheromones are the only

approach that demonstrably ENHANCES natural attraction.

Culture channels natural sex drive towards

strengthening family ties, paternal authority, class structure, consumerism or whatever else reflects the values of

the particular culture.
If you don’t conform to your culture’s standards of masculinity/femininity there’s

very little that nature (or pheromones) can do for you.
The only methods that can legitimately be called

seduction arts, are methods for projecting and manipulating cultural standards of masculinity/femininity.
All

the rest is crap.

I read a pick up guide when I was in my teens. For years, I used to think I had

game.
Then I got old and nothing worked. I didn’t get stupider, uglier, poorer, less articulate, less

cocky, less funny, less direct ... The only thing that changed was my T levels. Less testosterone = less natural

pheromones.
Add a few synthetic pheromones and, surprise, now I can play all kinds of games. Or (here comes the

zen part) I can not play games.

[seduceme]

If there’s

no natural attraction, there’s no game. Period.

Synthetic pheromones are the only approach that demonstrably

ENHANCES natural attraction.

Allright here youre implying that natural attraction is sexual

attraction, lust if you will. Yes there IS game if there is ATTRACTION. Not necessarily sexual attraction. Girls do

hook up with guys for other reasons than their sexual attraction, gold-diggers come to mind.

Culture channels natural sex drive towards strengthening family ties, paternal authority, class structure,

consumerism or whatever else reflects the values of the particular culture.
If you don’t conform to your

culture’s standards of masculinity/femininity there’s very little that nature (or pheromones) can do for you.


The only methods that can legitimately be called seduction arts, are methods for projecting and manipulating

cultural standards of masculinity/femininity.
All the rest is crap.

Interesting,

however I'd like to argue that projecting your sexuality by certain standards only defines you more as belonging to

either sex, sure that might create some attraction but in no way teaches you how to behave correctly in social

settings and more specifically social/sexualsituations.

[phersurf]

TRock "gets it"!

It

doesn't matter what technique you use if it's comming from the right inner game.

[Fatal]

Well if you're inexperienced and

don't have much innergame, then trying these different approches and keeping the things that work and molding them

together to, become, acctualy create your game. Some of us don't have natural known attraction, some of us have to

work on bringingout and devloping our natural attraction. Either way, they're both educational.

[TRock]

i don't think somebody should

game until they spent some time on their inner game. because if you don't know how to spark attraction or have some

sort of natural attraction, you're gonna come off as weird everytime. if you're inner game is weak and you keep

getting hammer, you'll probably just quit all together.

[Fatal]

Well don't they both do work on

your innergame? Seems to me they do to an extent, more DD than Ross though.

Also, can you make clear what

your oppinion of innergame is? (anyone) Seems I've been getting mixed opinions about that from different people.

[TRock]

i think you can succeed from

without inner game but it's only superficial. but once a chick finds out you don't have inner, it's all over.

inner game causes what you do to be natural while outter game you actually have to think about tactics. with inner

game you're c&f, push/pull, and do frame control naturally while with outter game it's like playing chess and you

have to plot your moves.