Reductionism and Holism

I believe that the male brain is naturally more reductionistic, attempting to understand things by breaking them into pieces and understanding the pieces. And ascribing rules to describe and control the world around them. Like in physics or chemistry, understanding the smaller elements in order to gain insight and influence on the larger systems. The part teaches about the whole.

The female brain on the other hand is more holistic, tending to use the wider context to give meaning to the smaller pieces. For example, the particular words you say are much less important than the context of the interaction. In fact, it's the context and tonality that gives the majority of the meaning to the particular words. The whole teaches about the part.

Different domains are not equally well suited to reductionistic vs. holistic styles of thinking. Some domains are all about analysis and dividing. Other domains are better suited to synthesis and merging.

The interesting thing is that interpersonal things, including (especially) male-female interactions is I think very well suited to a holistic understanding, where she "just knows" this or that (or thinks she does). But a lot of it just doesn't fit with the male brain, specifically with male styles of learning or of knowledge. But you have to seek understanding with the brain you have. The Game is an attempt to force the soft, non-logical, holistic information into a hard, logical, reductionistic framework. And it succeeds to some extent, but at times it can get frustratingly vague and touchy-feely. The occasional vagueness is not a weakness exactly, but a symptom of the underlying phenomenon being described.

Historically, no understanding was required. Prevailing culture dictated that women should get married, and women were essentially transferred from being subordinate to their fathers to being subordinate to their husbands. Income patterns reinforced it. It was unfortunate, but it did mean that in courtship men did not have to understand social dynamics to any real depth, which is convenient because the male brain is less suited for it anyway.

Things are clearly different now, and understanding social dynamics is not an optional bonus skill for men.

Selected forum posts

I decided sometimes when I have a particularly "good" post on the Dallas Lair forums, I'll also put it up here. Since I'm not taking the time to write for the blog, I can reuse my other commentary here.

Two Years

Exactly two years ago, the weekend of November 17-19 2006, I drove to Austin to take a bootcamp with Sinn. My bootcamp, and my involvement with the community more broadly, has made a big difference in my life, and lately I have been thinking about where I have been, and where I am going.

Before I found the community
* I had no options with women, and very few sexual encounters.
* I felt the world was unfair, that it was stacked against men, because in my experience, the men were always offering, and the women were always choosing, meaning that women held all the sexual power.
* I had few friends outside of work, and my overall lifestyle was not very social.
* My image of how courtship should work was roughly in alignment with the hollywood image.
* I felt I had the qualities women "should" want, and therefore I did not need to do anything differently. If they failed to see how much I had to offer, that's their tragedy, not mine. I felt that in some moral righteous sense I shouldn't have to do or be anything other than what I was.

After my bootcamp and my experiences shortly thereafter, I experienced a major reframe and conditions improved for me dramatically. (I don't think bootcamps are for everyone, but for me it got me started on a big change.)
* I had female friends, some I was sexual with, and some I was not.
* I had options sexually, and I knew I could get more.
* While I previously thought the world was unfair, I now understood the world was asymmetric, but not unfair. In fact there are major advantages to being a man, among them the fact that attractiveness is largely non-physical, meaning it can be improved. Women are largely stuck with whatever attractiveness they're born with.
* I grew to have friends outside of work and be more social generally.
* I learned the hollywood image of courtship was bullshit.
* I learned the distinction between what women "should" want, what they say they want, and what they do want. Men and women think in very different ways, and the way I had projected from my own psychology what women "should" want was grossly unrealistic. It is what it is.

For me it was an entirely new (and better) life, which has been getting better and better over the past 2 years.

But what I really wanted, even from the beginning, I have not yet found. And I'm starting to think that doing more of what I've been doing, even if I were to get more and more skilled, and incrementally happier, might not get me to my goal, which is to find the woman who is so exceptional that I can stop looking. Who delights not only body (the easy part), but also mind, and if I may, soul.

Assuming such a person exists (and I believe she does), wouldn't I inevitably find her by gaming more and better? If not, why not?

Here's my thinking. Both venue and behavior (game) act to filter the options. I've been gaming almost exclusively in bars. And not coincidentally, the techniques I learned are geared toward typical women found in bars. What if I got extremely good at gaming the typical woman found in a bar? Sure, I might get laid a lot. But if the woman I truly want is not that type, then I will encounter her only rarely, and my ordinarily successful behaviors might be horrible for winning her.

So I'm taking a step back and considering the broader picture. More women from bars may not help me. What do I really find fulfilling? Where would I find such a woman?

I believe that women who are highly socialized, who partied a lot in high school, and who go to bars a lot, develop a princess complex in direct relation to their physical attractiveness. Moreso if that's all they have. The world teaches them they don't have to be especially smart, and they know they can treat men poorly and get away with it, in the sense that it won't cause most men to stop trying to get in their pants.

Contrast with a hypothetical "non-bar" type who is equally attractive physically, but who stays home and reads, instead of going out. She might be much more genuine, and more interested in establishing a real connection. Perhaps she can better appreciate some of the qualities I have, and treats men better in general. Perhaps she is also smarter and therefore better at keeping an interesting conversation.

The non-bar woman may be a businesswoman, nurse, writer, teacher, engineer, or many other categories, but she is probably not a waitress, bartender, model, or stripper.

Ironically, I suspect winning over the non-bar type might be the least influenced by "game" and most influenced by character, which can be changed over time, but can't really be faked.

(The party-girl vs. non-bar girl is an extreme simplification, if not pure delusion, but I think the concept is useful in helping me clarify what I want.)

In a way, I feel like I've had a diversion. Like if my goal were to be a tennis champion but I had been training for a marathon. The experience is good in general, and indirectly helpful to the specific goal, but it won't get me there.

But it's funny how things work out sometimes, because without the techniques and women pulled from bars, I probably wouldn't have gotten much closer to figuring out what I ultimately want. Even knowing what I know now, I'd do it all over again.

What does this mean for the future? While my perspective on my personal long term goals is changing somewhat, some things are NOT changing: I still enjoy meeting the guys, and helping when I can. Of course I like my friends just as much as before. And I am no less interested in meeting new women for the shorter term, even in bars. This mental reframe might even make me more motivated in bar settings. We'll see.

In the end, I think this change in perspective just means that over the next weeks and months I'll be diversifying into other means of meeting women in addition to the cold approach. It should be interesting. I'm looking forward to it.

Intrinsic Traits, Positive Thinking and Being Delusional

(Elaborated forum post)

There are some guys (I may or may not be one of them), who need to have more good real qualities in order to gain, and especially to keep the level of woman they desire. Do you excite women with your passion and your brilliant future? Do you have the depth of thought and background to stimulate a smart woman? Are you attractive physically? Can you make her feel feminine and sexy? Can you provide for her financially as well as her other options? Can you blow her away in the sack?

The community is partly about marketing, but also about improving the quality of the product. The quality of the product matters, the marketing just earns you the opportunity for an introduction. For long term I would say the quality of the product is the only thing that matters.

The community is largely based around the idea that any guy can get any woman if he just does the right things which I believe is misleading.

I would say that just about any bag of traits, sufficiently polished, can pick up someone in a bar and get laid. Maybe even consistently. But there's a world of difference between that and the claim that any bag of traits, when sufficiently polished, can win over any woman. The good news is that with work, some of the intrinsic traits can be changed over time. Over time, any woman may be reachable, but at a given point in time, there will always be some women who are simply out of reach.

Does this contradict the idea that you should believe in yourself 100%? To have self-confidence, which is massively attractive, shouldn't you reject the negative energy of the nay-sayers and haters, and stay on the positive message that any woman would be absolutely privileged to be with you?

I am all for positive thinking.

There is a big difference between telling yourself you can become the most awesome man on the planet, vs. telling yourself you already are. One way motivates you to improve, and the other kills that motivation.

I think it's good to believe that you're the baddest motherfucker on the planet, in some contexts. But if it stops you from realistically assessing what good qualities you have and what needs improvement, then it's hurting you.

Don't dwell on the negative, and make sure to push the boundaries of what is possible, rather than sitting believing "I can't." But don't let the positive thinking stop you from being realistic.

Mojo Lair Drama Regarding DallasPUA

As many of you know, Mojo (creator of the DallasPUA website) and I have had a falling out. The short version is:

1. A guy named Mojo was expelled from the Dallas Seduction Lair, and he creates DallasPUA.com.
2. Mojo created an organization called the IC, and selected me as the new president.
3. Mojo leaves to travel the world, leaving the IC (primarily me) in charge of the lair and website.
4. Mojo removes my admin privileges and decides that while I am "lair leader" he owns the website.
5. I, along with the rest of the IC, and with the support of the members, create DallasLair.org.

The long version of the story is here: (PDF)

I am no longer affiliated with dallaspua.com, but the group and the people are the same, just now we're at The Dallas Lair.

Opening Up

Here is a problem I have been hearing men having lately: they get into this dynamic where the woman isn't contributing anything, and while she is participating, she is forcing him to do all the work in the conversation. It ends up being very one-sided and eventually the man gets sick of it (and isn't getting anywhere anyway), and he just gives up.

The stereotypical form is the dreaded question-loop:
PUA: Are you from here?
HB: Yup.
PUA: Cool, me too..
PUA: ... so what do you do?
HB: I'm in retail.
PUA: Do you like it?
HB: It's okay.
PUA: Um.. so do you have any pets?
HB: No
PUA: I gotta go find my friends.

The problem is that the man is providing the topic, but asking the woman to provide all the content. The man is not offering up anything personal, but is asking the woman to give personal information. The woman sabotages the conversation (deliberately or subconsciously) by giving one-word answers, so as to end the interview.

The problem is that you need to open up first. Divulge something interesting and somewhat personal, such as your own opinion or philosophy on something. It doesn't have to be deep, but it does have to be something about you.

The weather is supposed to be a no-no, because it's a pretty boring subject, but if you make it personal, it can be good. "You know, when it gets like this it reminds me... you know the thing that I like about the rain is that it feels like home. That feeling right before it's about to rain... you know, that smell.. I sorta miss it because ever since I moved to Texas, I don't really experience it very often." This is not really about the weather at all. It's about my feelings.

Then, when they see you're able to open up, they will feel comfortable talking about themselves.

Talk about yourself (first). Talk about your feelings and opinions and outlook and what makes you tick. Avoid talking about facts that don't convey character, such as what school you went to or what car you drive or what profession you're in, unless you can relate it to your character.

Then ask open ended questions (second). Don't ask her to open up more than you have opened up already. If you've taken the initiative, then it is perfectly fair to expect her to respond in kind.

Avoid talking about third-person stuff. Not that it works against you, but it doesn't help to establish a connection between the two of you. The blue whale is the largest animal to ever live, and you may have thousands of very interesting third-person facts that can keep her entertained for quite a while. But it demonstrates only that you are knowledgeable and very little about who you are. So I find it to be a waste of time in terms of establishing a relationship.

A lot of this stuff is paraphrased from stuff that Juggler teaches. I highly recommend his materials for general conversation skills.

Statistics

I'm torn as to whether to post updated statistics on here, because I want to publish it, but for regular readers or subscribers it's not very informative or interesting.

So I've added a section on the left, which I'll update occasionally. I'll include not only the total count, but also list the past few outings and who I was with. I might not include the venue because I don't want the venues to get over-crowded.