Hey /adv/,
I don't have a problem with starting conversations with girls and have always been a conversationalist.
When I start talking to girls (or anybody for that matter), I tend to see what they are interested in, hook on to that and subtly steer the conversation into that direction. I have interests in many things, from music, art, science, etc., so most of the time, as long as I find something to orientate myself toward, I can keep the conversation up (even if i know fairly little myself, i adapt and learn).
Mostly letting the other person talk, if possible. If it works, the conversation becomes a self-driver. The other person gets to talk about their passion and i learn things about them (as future reference).
This has worked well so far for general networking purposes.
Yet I feel that when I talk to girls (especially on a date / one on one), I have the tendency to go too deep too quickly. Not personal, but deeper (i don't ask for political opinions...).
For example.
Girl likes shopping:
>1. Where do you shop?
>2. What is your favourite designer. What/Who is your inspo? ... (or what is your favourite instagram?)
Girl likes music:
>1.What genre?
>2.What is your favourite artist and why? (implied: What makes them special in your eyes).
Girl like reading:
>1.What is your favourite author?
>2.What sort of books and why?
And I feel that this has not worked too well for girls. There are girls who react well to this form of talk, but they are rare and most of them usually don't grab my interest or aren't interested themselves.
>Is it me? What am i doing wrong?
>Am I hanging around the wrong girls?
>Am I aiming for the wrong girls?
Women are designed to talk a lot and not convey important information. With guys, it's easy - you just ask for the information and they give it to you. Steering away from this formula makes you lose out on male friends. With girls, what is "important" is actually "what is important to them" - so you can never really get anything relevant or objective from them (here come the feminists). Girls don't really operate well outside of emotion and selfishness.
That's always a good thing to keep in mind - to consider not only WHAT the girls think, but also HOW they think it. Play off the HOW more so than the WHAT - because by getting absorbed into the "WHAT" of girls' minds, you then get submerged in their bullshit interests and are completely averting from anything related to sex. HOW they think means how they act - which is infinitely a better measure. Never judge a girl on what she says, always on what she does.
>>17257865
Thanks.
>Getting to know the personality they say.
I often hear from girls that personality is important. But how is personality and interest conveys when you don't ask 'substantial' questions?
>Never judge a girl on what she says, always on what she does.
How does this work, if when on the first date, or casual conversation?
>Talk about nothing substantial
How would this look like?
>Did you watch the recent....movie in the cinema?
>I think it was awesome too, it reminded me of that other director...
>Too Deep already.
>What am i not getting?
>>17257874
> But how is personality and interest conveys when you don't ask 'substantial' questions?
Body language, RSVP - Rhythm Speed Volume Pitch (Tone (VP) Cadence (RS)). You convey your personality in how you talk and microexpresivley move, not what you talk about. A women knows only two male personalities: one to fuck and one to not.
>How does not caring about what a girl talks about work?
It just werkz
>>Talk about nothing substantial
>How would this look like?
Like you're talking to a little kid in terms of intelligence and material. Like you're in front of a class of children and you have to tell a story and keep them captivated. Like you're doing a paper on pathos rhetoric and have to bold every emotionally positive word and double-bold words relating to sex.
>What am i not getting?
Probably nothing is wrong with you if you can analyze the situation like this. You're introspective enough. You're probably just a nice, average guy :^)
>>17257903
>Body language, RSVP - Rhythm Speed Volume Pitch (Tone (VP) Cadence (RS)). You convey your personality in how you talk and microexpresivley move, not what you talk about. A women knows only two male personalities: one to fuck and one to not.
So when girls talk about 'personality', 'humour' and alike, they are referring to Ekman-style subconscious micro-expressions and stuff we can hardly improve?
> Man enters the room
>This guy got the vibe, got the right timbre in his voice and that the right Ekman's facial expression going. Ok would bang. Rest can gtfo.
Seem a bit disingenuous.
>It just werkz
Well cool.
>talk like a little kid
a tiny bit patronising...just enough for them to notice it subconsciously, but not enough to trigger their feminist side.
>tall order, not easy.
>Don't know m/f. But thanks.
I feel that this introspectiveness and willingness to improve and learn is wrong. But then how do it?
This has gotten a bit too red-pill-ish, but there is some truth to it - body language and cues matter a lot. Think of it this way:
OK, sure!
OK, sure.
OK, sure...
OK, sure?
All of these phrases contain the exact same words, but have completely different meanings.
The same goes for your quest to find more information about the opposite sex. It sounds like you're dropping an essay question on them - no one wants to be put on the spot like that in a situation where they know that they're being evaluated (like on an early or first date). If the other person is at a loss for words or doesn't have much to say at first, then YOU have to step it up and talk about yourself and a subject that you care about. If you keep getting false starts then it's a pretty good indicator that there's no chemistry.
>>17257948
You're overthinking this. Sure, your relation of this to Ekman's ideas is a good start but it's a bit of an overstretch for trying to rationalize what you're missing.
Sure, you're asking women the right questions and as long as you keep them talking about themselves it's good, but you have to come across as attractive while doing this still, and that's about 70% physical appearance (including caedance and expressions) and 30% social ability. Confidence in your body language and speech will gain you massive points, no matter your appearance so always work on that.
Go ahead and argue my numbers, but they're mostly arbitrarily decided based on the fact that initial attraction starts with appearance and then goes to actual personality.
>>17257958
Sure. Intonation, timbre, etc. is important.
But it seemed like from the previous posts that these things are virtually pre-determined to a large extent.
>Well you don't have a narrator voice.
>The way you walk is not my style.
>Your facial expression looks to...(something)...not for me.
How are these things which can be 'fixed'? Going to voice coaches, etc.? Or is relationship just a crapshoot thing, where simply based on your sample size, you can get the probability high enough to get the 'chemistry' right (whatever it actually is).
>If the other is at a loss for words
I usually start the conversation when one-on-one, because i don't like the silence/don't be the quiet and shy guy (who i am not)
Which is what i usually do, only say something if i deem it necessary to the flow of the conversation.
>arrive
>wait for 3 minutes
>no chemistry ->stand up and leave
>chemistry -> continue.
I am not trying to be sarcastic, i just want to understand my mistake.
>>17257971
Sure. I am not contesting what you are saying.
But outside of
>Gyming and getting the packs
>Dressing properly
>Be open (staight back, don't cross your arms...)
>Asking the right questions
What is there else to 'do'?
basically be the guy in the pic:
>UCL lecturer
>fitness man of the year
>Ph.D in engineering
>>17257993
>How are these things which can be 'fixed'? Going to voice coaches, etc.?
>'fixed'
>i just want to understand my mistake.
I'll get /pol/'d for saying this shit but it needs to be said. This is "nu-male" thinking. Nothing is "wrong", nothing needs to be "fixed". The situation is that you are not getting laid often, which causes you discomfort. That's it - you want to fill in the "void", it's not at all about how you talk to women or that PUA / social engineering shit. It's about what you NEED in life - sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSZky8dk7OE
Your thinking is that you're entitled to it and it's the most important thing in the world. What changes once you start having a lot of sex? Why do you want to have a lot of sex? What benefits does having a lot of sex add to your life? Media and the narrative shaped your mind into believing sex is the measure of a mans worth and by having a lot of sex you become a better and better person. How's this for redpill: Sex doesn't matter, it's reptilian brain shit. Go above the animal and become human. "Disregard females, acquire currency" Don't make "getting laid" the center of your drive for happiness.
>>17258065
>reptilian brain shit
http://www.brainrules.net/survival
"We have 3 brains"
unsure if reptilian brain or paleomammalian actually
>>17258065
The voice coach thing was sarcasm.
>entitled
That is pretty much the opposite of what i think. You are not entitled to sex. Sex is at the end of having enough game.
And seemingly shallower = smoother = more game
>Don't make sex the centre of your life
concentrate on study -> become a secluded lab scientist -> risen above sex as an instinct -> get sex.
>Would be rad if shit worked that way. But never has in my experience.
Or Indian Edition
concentrate on study -> open start-up -> be 35 and rich -> get laid
>Ain't gonna wait like that.
and I'm trying to keep up above in my head, instead of going under.
