Hoe to be charismatic and charming so that girls will fall for you? I'm 18 and I'd at least like to have a gf before I graduate.
First of all, you stop trying to be somebody else.
Then you start being your self. Don't be a sheep amoung friends. Be your own leader.
Date girls one to two years younger than you. High school idjits always try to date girls their own age, which is doomed to fail.
>>16559532
JUST B URSELF
Yeah, fuck outta here.
>>16559543
Solid advice. Heed this guy, OP.
>>16559547
All right, although I know just about no underclassman. What do I do when I'm a freshman in college, date my age?
>>16559556
No, date high school seniors. Where do you think all the girls in your school are on Thursday nights?
>>16559562
How the hell will I find them when I'm in college? I'll be honest, I've never been to any parties because I've always been reading books and studying up at home. No problem with friends, I've never been social though.
>>16559556
Snoop around your area. It's likely there are some social events both highschoolers and university freshmen attend. Hard to be specific, really. Just try to lead an active social life and you're ought to meet some easily-impressed teens.
I can give you a recent example. Poland had national elections a month ago, and a local transparency NGO organized for international observers to come over - pre-paid hotel reservations and travel expenses covered, of course. Well, me and some friends signed up, we're all 23-24. When we arrived, we met ten highschool senior girls and they were so easily impressed it was almost sad.
That's just an example. Try dancing schools, choirs, art shows, etc. Classy bars or wineries are a good place to meet quality girls, but wait until you're no longer a freshmen, then hunt for freshmen girls. Yeah, the rule still applies - girls two years younger will always be impressed. That last up until you finish university, so do good with your time there.
>>16559547
Either be confident being yourself or be arrogant trying to be someone else.
Both work, but only the first one will get you a long term relationship and sex.
The second one will get you sex, but you'll be so fucking toxic to deal with long term you'll either end up alone or worse, stuck with someone just as toxic and in denial about themselves.
You need to be yourself, but you can change yourself if you're unhappy with who you are.
>taking advice from chicks about how to seduce chicks
Learn from PUA. It works. Don't be yourself. Yourself sucks.
/thread
>>16559753
Gross. PUA gets you skanky chicks and hides the fact that you have low self esteem and don't understand that women are just regular people.
>>16559792
Wrong. PUA gives you access to sluts, but it also gives you access to good girls. A substantial amount of the PUA literature deals with the latter category, which is expected given the ease of the former.
>>16559528
You gotta practice bro. Something that I watched and saw be very effective is to always have a story that relates to whatever is being talked about. If that story has you at the center of it, even better. Learning to tell stories well, and engage your audience, will do wonders for you. Aside from that, practice bro. You'll never get good at anything by sitting on 4chinz all day, you gotta get out there and do learn.
>>16559799
Getting good girls is literally just about treating them like equals and not needing to be a in a relationship (need is unattractive, wanting is attractive). No deception, no bs antics, just being equal, open and vulnerable.
>>16559814
This is absolutely incorrect on nearly every conceivable level.
Why do you think you are capable of having an objective, unbiased perspective of yourself?
PUA scares girls. They hate it because it involves the risk of hooking up with a trojan horse low status male. This is slightly analogous to rape, but a less egregious example.
It still, objectively works. Nearly all of its doctrines are correct and based on tried and true methods. You could be seduced easily by a man well versed in PUA because you'd never be able to convince yourself that he could be framed as low-status, which would require you to understand that you're being deceived in some way.
>>16559547
>JUST B URSELF
>Yeah, fuck outta here.
He's right, though. Being comfortable with yourself is pretty much the definition of confidence. Trying to give off an impression of confidence just makes you appear insecure. In fact, making an effort to give of any sort of impression to people around you makes you look insecure. Only once you're okay with who you are can you be naturally confident in a way that it attracts people, which is what charisma is about.
>>16559821
Ahahahaha you think self development and introspection are useless because you can't avoid bias. Enjoy being emotionally stunted.
When you're confident about who you actually are it's possible to do all the things I previously listed and be attractive. Of course it all depends on what kind of people you want to get with. Constructing a shitty story or persona to be attractive is gross and tiring.
Relationships are about trust, communication and shared experiences. PUA throws trust out the window and muddles up the second.
There are physically attractive people with all kinds of personalities. I prefer women who are intelligent, compassionate and have self respect. These people actually appreciate being treated like a person instead of an object to be manipulated.
>>16559848
>Ahahahaha you think self development and introspection are useless because you can't avoid bias. Enjoy being emotionally stunted.
On the contrary, I'm merely suggesting that your ability to engage in legitimate, fruitful introspection is severely handicapped by your own personal bias, which is literally the textbook case. Useless vs. useful is a false dichotomy.
>When you're confident about who you actually are it's possible to do all the things I previously listed and be attractive. Of course it all depends on what kind of people you want to get with. Constructing a shitty story or persona to be attractive is gross and tiring.
>I prefer women who are intelligent, compassionate and have self respect. These people actually appreciate being treated like a person instead of an object to be manipulated.
You're like the textbook fruitloop that PUA consistently mocks. You have a completely warped perception of how relationship dynamics work. Maybe you've been in relationships where other characteristics corrected or stood in for the characteristics you lacked that are described in PUA and think this can be universalized as the correct behavior. Not so. Many men don't have these lacking characteristics to live in a bubble like you and are thus reliant on PUA to get by. It works. Very, very fucking well.
>>16559864
Of course it's impaired, but that's no reason to not continue. It's stating a pointless fact. Bias is inherent in all behaviour and cognition.
My question is why the fuck do you need that shit to "get by"? if you need a relationship you aren't ready for a relationship. I understand that it's easy sex, but that's fucking empty long term (not for everyone, but for many people).
Oh PUA built in an in-group, out-group mechanism to immunise people against leaving, just like the Abrahamic religions.
Most people's relationship problems revolve around their inadequacy issues, an inability to respond to bids, an inability to trust or an inability to communicate. These are issues you actually need to deal with, not cover up with manipulation methods that prey on the problems of others.
>>16559927
>Of course it's impaired, but that's no reason to not continue. It's stating a pointless fact. Bias is inherent in all behaviour and cognition.
It's not pointless, it's an important factor in my thesis, which is that your rejection of PUA is based on an emotional, non-objective assessment. If I couldn't or didn't cite your bias, I'd have an unsatisfactory causal explanation for your mistake. It's one of two models I offer as an explanation for you to understand why and how you might be (and are) so off-base in your assessment, the second being an olive-branch theory that your strengths in other areas have covered up your weakness in this area. It is normally people who have weaknesses in all areas of seduction that need to focus on this one, completely plastic one.
>My question is why the fuck do you need that shit to "get by"? if you need a relationship you aren't ready for a relationship. I understand that it's easy sex, but that's fucking empty long term (not for everyone, but for many people).
PUA isn't about easy sex per se. That's one of its results, but a healthy, normative person interested in long-term relationships can use it to get and maintain one, commonly termed an LTR in the PUA community. These issues are not under discussed - they're a lot of what gives the PUA community its oomph.
>Oh PUA built in an in-group, out-group mechanism to immunise people against leaving, just like the Abrahamic religions.
This describes literally any movement.
>charismatic and charming
>girls fall for him
>>16559952
I am seeing in my posts that my advice is more about maintaining a relationship rather than getting one. I should probably look at how I do that. I might even be implementing PUA shit as an automatic learned behaviour.
My reaction to PUA is definitely emotional and to be honest I should do more research. I just can't get around what seems like a massive betrayal of trust as one of the foundations.
Most, but not all movements seek to ridicule those who don't meet their standards.
Also thanks for staying civil, I fall into Aussie shitposting mode far too easily.
>>16560000
It's not hard to understand why someone would be viscerally opposed to PUA. Rape is such a deeply socially and biologically ingrained taboo not for vague claims about morality and justice, but because rape allows the low value male a biological shortcut in mate selection.
PUA bears similarities, but you if you look at it from the perspective that society has taken away something from the normative male that he needs to rediscover, it's less morally offensive.
Many men (such as myself) were not equipped with a proper understanding of female agency. PUA theory (which I don't really follow anymore) helped me build my perception of women and how I should behave in their company around the core explanation of gender dynamics from unbiased men whose only goal is to successfully attract women. Internalizing this image of women has ridiculously improved the health of my relationships with the opposite sex. Given the success of this doctrine and its consistency with common sense, ad hoc explanations of science, I'm content in pursuing it as a very correct thesis of gender dynamics.
As for maintaining relationships with women, the PUA theory would focus more on never allowing yourself to be reframed as a beta male through "shit tests" that women implicit do to probe the fitness of their partner. A lot of this trust stuff you're focusing on seems to be more consistent with a different (less successful) model of attracting partners, which relies on signaling that you're a good, stable reproductive partner. I don't believe in this method's ability to keep a relationship fresh and contented.
>>16560031
I'm against breaking trust of any kind and I trust others easily.
I just dump people if they try shit tests. If I'm not what someone is looking for I'd rather just be in a different relationship. If the power dynamic of a relationship shifts to one side I don't want the relationship. Having strong personal boundaries seems more important to me than trying to convince someone you're the right fit for them.
Another issue I have is how black and white it treats the gender divide, like men and women are entirely different beings instead of two partially overlapping normal distributions with different means.
I guess I feel like PUA is a bandaid; kind of a fake it till you make it tool, but often people forget to stop faking it and adjust their goals to be more genuine.
Again if I have to trick someone into being with me, I don't want to be with them.
The trick to keeping a relationship together is to never stop having new shared experiences, it's something you actually have to work at once the honeymoon period slows down (but of course you'd only do this if you want the relationship, no one wants an asshole filled with resentment). Also avoiding codependency is a good move too.
>>16560080
>I'm against breaking trust of any kind and I trust others easily.
Loyalty/betrayal is a pretty prominent moral dimension in Haidt's moral foundations theory. I feel it strongly as well, but I don't feel I'm betraying someone else in improving myself.
>I just dump people if they try shit tests
I feel like you don't fully understand the shit test. It's completely normative and healthy behavior that literally all women do. Google "common shit tests" and see how it applies to your own experiences.
>Another issue I have is how black and white it treats the gender divide
In this issue, I think you can give them the credit of having the correct perspective on the theory of the gender divide given that the most crucial aspect of reproductive reality is actually binary; the genitals and possession of a womb. The short explanation is that this binary means that men are more disposable and viewed with less sympathy by society because one penis can inseminate 10 wombs a day whereas one womb takes a huge partition of resources to sustain across several months, with the subsequent responsibility of the child. Do you see how this binary might make the binary mechanism you're describing consistent as an evolutionary or even social phenomenon? I do.
>>16560080
>I guess I feel like PUA is a bandaid; kind of a fake it till you make it tool, but often people forget to stop faking it and adjust their goals to be more genuine.
Maybe, I'm not convinced. I don't participate in PUA anymore but it's mechanistic perception of gender relations now defines my reality. I don't hate, dislike or look down on women for being what they are, but viewing reality in terms of the material is a healthy first step to coming up with a methodology to actually succeed in your goals. That's why math exists and works so well.
>Again if I have to trick someone into being with me, I don't want to be with them.
Again, I don't view it as a 'trick' so much as correct behavior on my part, like wearing a suit to a wedding.
I don't really want to normalize PUA because it would increase sexual competition, but I'll point out that if you take my prior advice and feel that men who haven't been given the tools by structures in society to succeed with women and thus lived fulfilled lives should have a chance at that kind of happiness, you won't find it so revolting.
>>16559814
Listen to this guy.
>>16560108
Thanks for the search terms, I've never seen anything by Haidt before.
Ah from googling I've realised that shit tests are more commonly during the getting a relationship phase, not while in a relationship. I was more thinking about passive aggression/resentment in relationships.
In my experience that kind of shit test comes from insecure people in a new environment regardless of gender. I spent a semester in an all guys catholic college and I was bombarded with them regardless of sexual preference.
I get that there is a binary biological divide, but I find that it manifests differently in different people and to different degrees of severity. People are obsessed with reproduction to differing degrees and are at differing levels of awareness of their obsession. Men and women have general tendencies, but there are always exceptions which overlap.
I feel like it oversimplifies women to general trends, which plays the numbers, but loses the individual differences. Its appropriateness seems to really differ based on what you're looking for.
I get that knowledge about the "correct" range of behaviour is something that people need to learn, but that can be done without creating a deceitful persona. I guess my main issue with it really comes down to the fake it till you make it forever problem.
People need practice to learn the skills and this gives people the opportunity which is great, but at some point they have to take the training wheels off and find someone they can actually be comfortable around.
What do you think about the idea of being best friends with your partner and/or ex?
>>16560191
I feel like you're trying to generalize my explanation of the gender distinction. I'm not saying that many traits don't exist on a bell curve/spectrum that have substantial overlap between men and women, I'm saying the trait that we're discussing at the most primal level is that of the mechanical distinction between male and female. Even if you completely discard the causal biological links to human behavior, we could, you and I, merely postulate that the realities of each reproductive system necessitate different social strategies for attaining reproduction, which is why love, sexual dimorphism and all that good stuff exist in the first place. This general model seems to have superior predictive power to any type of model you could provide that somehow accounted for wild, minority outliers.
>find someone they can actually be comfortable around
You can be comfortable around people without loosening all of your social inhibitions. There's things you don't do or say, even to your best of friends. This is a rubric of behavior along those lines.
>What do you think about the idea of being best friends with your partner and/or ex?
Any and all female friends are a huge boon to attracting more females.
>>16560241
I agree with that view of sexual dimorphism. Nature via nurture is definitely part of my rule set. I haven't really approached dating and relationships in a rigorous mathematical manner. I should intentionally review my assumptions.
Sorry! I keep assuming the worst of what you say based off of my experience with the less self aware and more vocal members. I should really know better than to do that.
I am only recently learning the benefits of a conscious verbal filter with the people I care about; there are just some things people don't need to know. I guess I still have a remnant of a utopian dream where I don't need one. At the same time I feel like most people have too strict a filter, but defining "too strict" is pretty messy and context dependent. That's actually something I'd want to study. It's one of those things I know exists, but haven't given much thought yet.
>Any and all female friends are a huge boon to attracting more females.
I think this is where you start to lose me because it seems like we have differing end goals. But for what you want, you seem to have your path set pretty damn well.
>>16560335
I don't think we have differing end goals, just differing mindsets. Learning game was the only chance for me to enter into fulfilling long-term relationships.
>>16560452
Fair.
It's probably just the content we're covering, but it seems like having a long term relationship is your primary goal and every aspect of your interactions with women is slave to that goal. That's not necessarily bad, but it seems way more stressful than it needs to be. Then again I have a very limited understanding of your context and I've probably oversimplified things.
I treat my female friends exactly the same as my male friends. I enjoy their company, engage in reciprocal altruism and share new experiences. Any problems we have we talk out and we respect each other's boundaries. We're equals. Treating things differently would just be so strange for me. But then again my context isn't exactly generic.
The only differences between a friend and a romantic partner have been the intense emotional attachment and physical intimacy although those lines have been blurry at times.
I've deluded myself that my end goal is to help people. It's been going pretty well so far.
>>16560031
I can see PUA being successful depending on the person, but let's not pretend it's based on good science. 90% of the shit I see PUAs spout is a bunch of evo psych nonsense. Men are slaves to their emotions just as women are, and any person can be manipulated with the right techniques/knowledge.
