The Basic Skills Test For Game

Amid an explosive discussion at Dalrock about the knowledge of game in wider society*, commenter Jack penned a brilliant treatise on the basic outline of a good game toolbox. It’s as simple as three steps.

1.) Active Disinterest and how it utterly drives women crazy. (ignoring calls, proper frame control, taming your desire to overtly advertise your interest to her. eliminating your desire to emote)

The first detailed writings I saw on this exact topic (save for Leykis 101′s crude tips like don’t answer the phone on the weekend) were from Mystery. The problem is this: you can show a lack in a woman by not talking to her and not being around her; however, she won’t have any reason to get interested in you because you are not in her space. To get around this, Mystery developed a series of gambits to to stay socially engaged with a woman but to exude an aura that you were not actually interested in her. For this he deployed the body rock, isolating a woman in a group setting, and the neg. No game blog has arrived until it’s had a long and pointless debate about negs, and almost every discussion gets it wrong at some point. A neg is not about “lowering a woman’s self-esteem.” It was designed as a display of non-interest, a comment that a man who was into the woman would never make (the word he used in an oft-quoted post on the matter was “snub” – to deny someone attention).

Among many other men, I can vouch for seeing a woman’s interest in me take a dramatic tick upwards when I withdraw signals of my own attention and interest, watching her eyes scramble as she tries to find a way to get it back. It’s a bit disheartening to really internalize this lesson – you realize how shallow many women really are in this arena, and you recognize that in all those years of seeing women go nuts for guys who couldn’t give two licks about them, at least some of those cases were little more than the denial of attention itself (combined with even a modest kernel of attraction) – the girl wanting something shiny she couldn’t have.

I can also vouch for the converse – myself and many others have seen first-hand in our own love lives how even a smidgen of too much interest too early can and will punch us a one-way ticket to Celibacy Point. The need for today’s men to show a distinct LACK of outward interest in a woman he’s actually pursuing has been observed, noted and even encouraged by today’s young women. Men who are paying attention learn that a true emotional disclosure and logistical investment is dangerous to his sex and relationship prospects. And then today’s women complain they can’t get a guy to open up and stick around. You got what you ordered, girl.

As Roosh tweeted pithily: “The game is so fucked up in USA that if you push the wrong button on your phone and accidentally call her, she may write you off completely.”

The extreme version of showing lack of interest is instilling dread. Even accounting for Roissy’s trademark hyperbole and overstatement, a true dread campaign is a last-resort measure whose efforts would be better spent capturing the affections of a new, more cooperative woman.

2.) Women shit testing you and how you must pass these shit tests to be seen as higher value. (her bringing up other guys, her testing your frame, her stirring the pot, her testing the boundaries)

Much has been written on fitness testing and I don’t want to rehash too much of it. I really liked the idea of fitness testing as a girl “rubbing up against your manhood” – sometimes it’s not a test but rather an induction for you to display traits she knows you have but enjoys seeing/experiencing again.

Like the active disinterest of point #1, fitness tests are the pitching of a power struggle in which the winning move is not to play. The fitness test is all around us; once you know to look for it, you see all sorts of these tiny synthetic power struggles all around you. Fitness tests are set up as a double-win situation – if the guy passes, the woman feels secure in her man’s strength and social wiles; if he fails, she usually gets a freshly-revealed chump to do something she could have done for herself.

The trouble is that guys have been taught from their youth that the way to “earn” a woman’s love is to serve women’s most petty requests in holding their purses and doing for them anything they ask for in either a squeaky tone of voice or an enraged yell. Plugged-in guys don’t understand that in a lot of cases, women secretly want you to say no – the way to her heart is to deny that which she is asking. Sometimes they don’t even know that’s what they want, until you do say no and they feel this comforting wave of security come over them – the test was itself subconscious, but she feels the satisfaction of the man passing it.

Fitness testing and frame were key discussions in one of Roissy’s most important posts, “Relationship Game Week: A Reader’s Journey.” In this tome, Roissy quoted at length the comments of Keoni Galt (under the pseudonym Dave From Hawai’i) in which he described employing some game techniques to transform his marriage from a typically henpecked, naggy enterprise into a once again happy and productive partnership with a fully-functional sex life. I’ve called this “the most important post in Manosphere history,” as it took the techniques and mindset of PUA game directly into the marital sphere – abjectly lapping the milquetoast work of dozens upon dozens of relationship-psychology and self-help authors across a generation. It really is worth a full read.

Athol Kay has a few good nuggets on fitness testing. One is that not everything is a fitness test. Another related one is that you can do some favors from your mate without worrying about losing her attraction, but no request should be serviced if it’s an unreasonable request, or is delivered in an unreasonable tone of voice. Some would say this is treating your woman like a child; I rather see it as demanding an adult woman to exhibit the same manners that we try to inculcate into children we’re raising to be responsible adults.

3.) Approaching and asking for the number. (you cannot hit if you don’t swing, women want you to approach, the vast majority of men NEVER do it.)

It’s not that complicated. If you’re going to pursue women, you need to meet them first. You need to get over the anxiety. You need to ask for the money, so to speak. You see a woman you like, you start talking to her, and make sure to give her an opportunity to see you again. Think about it: your typical blue-pill man probably makes less than 50 real approaches IN HIS LIFE! Go to any singles bar any night of the week and see how many guys are standing around holding their dicks peering over at the girls they lust after but wouldn’t dare actually make a move on. If you are a regular, habitual approacher, you are in the top 5% of men in the sexual-marketplace inventory simply by that fact alone. You are making your future happen – be in charge of your own life.

Jack wraps it up:

Once I understood those three core concepts, I’ve been able to pull far hotter chicks on a much more consistent basis, which eventually leads you to a place that every man must be in order to feel comfortable in his skin around his hot girlfriend and thus be able to keep her…..A mentality of abundance.

Which is the ability to internalize the thought that if this chick i’m with dumps me, screws me over or withholds sex, I can replace her. It might take me a month or two to find someone else of equal sexual attractiveness, but I can replace her and she knows it. It is not a belief that can be faked, because a woman can smell a fraud.

And that my friends is game. And that is where you must be mentally in order to have a healthy and sexually active relationship.

The man is spot on. I made the point in the Dalrock thread that most guys do NOT want to be long-term players, picking up new chicks on the regular and filling a black book with booty calls. Sure, it sounds like a nice fantasy, but most guys don’t have what it takes to really enjoy that kind of lifestyle per se. Most guys who get into game are doing it for exactly what Jack describes – not the abundance, but the abundance mentality. The confidence that they don’t have to be solely at the mercy of their woman’s choice; if they wind up single, they can find another woman of equal value without much trouble. Paradoxically, that kind of confidence is what can keep his one woman satisfied with him. Nothing turns a woman off like the idea that she is her man’s only option.

What these men are looking for is the tragically unfulfilled promise of the blue pill philosophy – that he can have a healthy relationship with a decent woman if he’s willing to put in a little bit of effort. Once you’ve climbed the hill of getting your mind and your game right, it IS a “little bit of effort,” a non-consuming aspect of your well-lived life.

Active disinterest, fitness testing, and the need to approach. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

*My opinion, which is mirrored by a significant sample of commenters on the thread, is that the knowledge of game is becoming mainstream in the culture, yet its practice and adoption continues to be among a distinct minority. Myself and others independently likened it to the obesity situation in America – despite the fact there has never been MORE freely-available information and plans and strategies to eat well and work out, there’s clearly a small (ha) group of people getting more fit while the general public balloons.

About these ads

25 Comments

Filed under beta guide, dating and field game

25 responses to “The Basic Skills Test For Game

  1. feminizedwesternmale

    Excellent summary post that I’ll bmark when it is time to refresh. Thank you.

  2. “My opinion, which is mirrored by a significant sample of commenters on the thread, is that the knowledge of game is becoming mainstream in the culture, yet its practice and adoption continues to be among a distinct minority”

    A good point, and a phenomenon not solely confined to game. Many people have the knowledge to lose weight and get into good shape, but do they do it? For the majority, simply having the knowledge, and telling themselves “I could put this into practise if i wanted to” is sufficient to shore up their fragile egos. Mental masturbation as I’ve heard it referred to.

    The few who will go that extra mile and push themselves to apply this knowledge will always be ahead of the pack.

  3. Opus

    Jack’s comment much impressed me too. It is however very difficult to fake lack of interest, when one is obviously interested. Girls hit on me when I show lack of interest but that is because I am not interested. They ask me out: I am repulsed by this and fail to show.

    As for approaching girls standing across a room, that shows interest and most of the bitches round here use that as an opportunity to reject. A more subtle approach is required.

    As for no2 – the fitness test – when women start out talking about other guys, my response is to walk. I am not putting up with that sort of behaviour. Let them go with these other guys if that is their thing. If they do that before you hardly know each other they will continue to do it when you do.

    I am not anti-game, but I do wonder about its overall effectivesness. Seduction is indeed a Game, but like some Games, it may be better to start a new one, that is to say start again with a different woman, rather than, pursue soemone who is simply too much like hard work – which is why I try to apply a one day: one woman rule.

  4. Agreed that a relatively simple set of mistake-avoiding behaviors makes it easier for guys to not poison the attraction a woman has for him. Looking at all of my past relationships, I can pin down pretty well when the attraction stopped, and what I did to cause that.

    It was an enormous relief, because, speaking for myself, I had always wondered what was doing wrong. Finding out that it was a simple set of (relatively) easily-fixed behaviors was incredibly heartening.

    It’s funny, too, how many of my drinking buddies talk about Game, but don’t really put it into practice. Two of them haven’t had to, really, because they’re in good shape, and the other two are messing around with online dating at the ripe old age of 23.

    Abundance mentality isn’t really impossible to fake; I slept with my last ex on the first date, and assumed (based on my previous experience) that it was just a hookup, until she told me, in tears, that she wanted to be my girlfriend. That said, past the three month mark, you need to alpha up, because the honeymoon and novelty have both worn off. I didn’t, and things fell apart by month six, and finally cratered around month nine.

    The other thing is that kids who had to learn social skills analytically (as opposed to heuristically) profit the most from game. Krauser had an interesting bit on how the first phase of game essays came from borderline-spergy social outcasts.

  5. “Not the abundance, but the abundance mentality.”

    Exactly…and if you use this strategy on all women they will be naturally attracted to it.

    Now that I have got into more of the unconscious mentality of abundance I use the techniques on the all women that I talk to at the dance studio I go to. It doesn’t matter if they are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s. They are all drawn to me.

  6. KK

    Yeah, those three steps are the 20% of skills that account for 80% of the results. There’s plenty of more advanced game to learn too (the other 80%) but that stuff stops being this universally useful very quickly.

    Of course, all this assumes that you actually run across women in the first place. Roosh has been banging the drum of logistics lately, and that largely defines the baseline conditions you’ll be working with.

    Everyone can probably identify an item they’re particularly susceptible to fail. I’ve always found the paradoxical nature of active disinterest difficult to get right. You can’t just ignore women, especially outside social circles where people mingle more organically, and the inverse relation between displaying interest and receiving it back gets obvious when you know to look for it. It’s like you need some plausibly deniable cover to come into her attention and while there, increase your intriguingness (there’s gotta be a better word for that) by being actively disinterested in her. The ‘it just happened’ fantasy played out by an intentional agent.

  7. Pingback: The Basic Skills Test For Game « PUA Central

  8. “Krauser had an interesting bit on how the first phase of game essays came from borderline-spergy social outcasts.”

    A lot of that is due to the technology required for game to proliferate – the internet. Forums, websites. When the internet was a new thing, it was mostly the slightly out there people that were using it to begin with – people with very analytically focused thought processes that used spreadsheets to keep track of things. Mystery Method was really the only thing that could have come from those combinations. It’s a great work and almost necessary to read to get into game, but it definitely is dated as well.

  9. Vicomte

    BASIC SKILLS TEST FOR GAME

    1. Can you be mean to someone you want to be nice to?

    A) Yes
    B) No
    C) MGTOW

  10. KNZ

    “not the abundance, but the abundance mentality” – this is the money quote

  11. Hero

    @Opus

    So, you found Jack’s comment impressive but yet you can’t show lack of interest, can’t approach women directly, and when a woman starts talking about other guys you run.

    How can you sit there wondering about game’s effectiveness when you can’t try the basics?

    Get out there and experiment. Stop sitting there pondering it.

    Also, you don’t have to “fake” lack of interest. What you have to do is gain an abundance mentality concerning your interactions with women. Then you can genuinely be interested but not anxious about a possible rejection. That alone changes the interaction completely.

  12. still learning

    with regard to her bringing up other guys: what is the appropriate response? My impression was relaxed indifference was appropriate … but after reading some (more) posts (especially on MMSL) perhaps mate guarding is more appropriate? I guess I always felt like if she’s interested in other guys, there’s not really anything I can do about it, other than being my best self and having other options. Curious if you feel differently. Thanks.

  13. It isn’t too surprising that Game is only spreading in terms of awareness of existence rather than more widespread use. My guess is that the people who find, consider, and make use of Game are the same sort (and probably the same people) who think:

    ‘These politics don’t make sense. Maybe the libertarians have a point…’

    ‘The food pyramid doesn’t make sense. Maybe those paleo/primal folks have a point…’

    Basically, only a small percentage of the population is going to look at their worldview and consider that not only were they wrong, but so was most everyone else. Meanwhile, those willing to do just that continue to steadily improve and create a larger gap between themselves and everyone else who refer to them as racist, sexist, bigot, etc.

    As Badger mentioned, we have a flood of information on what works or doesn’t ranging from politics and econimics to relationships and health/fitness. Yet most governments are committing suicide and most folks are fat and miserable(whether in a relationship or single).

  14. whatsnew

    “The problem is this: you can show a lack in a woman by not talking to her and not being around her; however, she won’t have any reason to get interested in you because you are not in her space.”

    This and the other descriptions of “Active Disinterest” I think are somewhat helpful but totally miss the point, because they sound like an attempt to fry ice, and while many women will talk rationalization involving fried ice, what they are actually need/want is not contradictory at all.

    The right attitude is to be quite interested in getting laid in general, not at all disinterested, but totally clear that that interest does not target any specific woman.

    That’s the key: keenly interested in getting laid, not interested at all in getting laid specifically with her.

    The abundance mindset is not that one has lots of women, but that one does not need any specific woman to get laid, because one is sure to get laid with _some_ woman.

    It is as if women were “selling” pussy, and take advantage as much as they can of “buyers” who badly need their specific pussy, and only respect “dark triad” “buyers” who are entirely uncaring as to which pussy they use, as long as it is hot enough.

    While I think that the question “Can you be mean to someone you want to be nice to?” and the 3 answers are very wise, it is at the same time a bit overdone.

    It is not about being mean, even if there are plenty of women who like mean men, and these are usually the ones who are more sexually active.

    It is about being selfish and uncaring more than mean or an asshole; it about needing her less than she need you.

    That BTW explains why so many women really like gay men and have impossible desires for them, and it is not just that gay men usually make more of an effort than straight men to have nice bodies. It is that gay men can be very polite to women without given a fuck about any of them.

    In some comment somewhere I have found the thesis that women are hypergamous in a relative sense, and in particular as to psychopathy/sociopathy, in the following way: that most women are turned on by a man who is significantly more psychopathic/sociopathic than they are, but not too much.

    Game is learned sociopathy/psychopathy for the singular purpose of turning on many/most women.

    So a better question may be “Can you be selfish and uncaring about someone you want to be intimate with?” which is quite different in nuance…

  15. Vicomte

    So a better question may be “Can you be selfish and uncaring about someone you want to be intimate with?”

    No. By definition.

    This is where the system starts to break down.

  16. Pingback: Does Game Entail Promiscuity? | The Badger Hut

  17. Hero

    So a better question may be “Can you be selfish and uncaring about someone you want to be intimate with?”

    Of course you can. Take a look around you at the selfish and uncaring guys who are getting laid.

    Open your eyes. Stop thinking about this stuff as though women are men. They aren’t. They don’t think like us.

    As a man, you might not be attracted to a selfish and uncaring woman. But can a woman be attracted to a selfish and uncaring man? You bet.

  18. “So a better question may be “Can you be selfish and uncaring about someone you want to be intimate with?”

    Of course you can. Take a look around you at the selfish and uncaring guys who are getting laid. ”

    Well if we are talking about just getting laid, then certainly. But, what if we are talking about a LTR mate or wife? Can you be selfish and uncaring about your wife?

    I’m not saying that PUA is easy, because it obviously takes practice and skill. The thing is, if you aren’t emotionally invested in a woman it is FAR easier to be “seflish” and “uncaring” about her. There is a rather delicate balance necessary IMO for a man in a marriage to go this route.

    And we should probably define “intimate” here. Intimate can simply mean naked together or it could mean marriage, kids, and a white picket fence.

  19. Hero

    Can’t we all agree that women are more attracted to men they find worldly and self possessed? Are you guys missing this?

    Which one is more attractive?…
    Buying your girl diamond earrings vs. taking her on a weekend getaway with that same amount of money.
    Asking “where do you want to go for dinner?” vs. saying “there’s this great new place I want to take you for dinner”.
    Sitting around the house waiting to talk to her vs. being busy with your hobbies until she makes it knows she wants to spend time with you.

    Women like men that have a mission and a path. They want to be included when you take them on a ride in life. They much prefer men that are self aware and self possessed (in other words selfish) as opposed to men that are give all of themselves away to her.

    Don’t get too caught up in what “selfish and uncaring” mean. The lesson here is that it is way better to be “selfish and uncaring” than not.

    You guys are confusing “selfish and uncaring” with not wanting to spend time with a woman. You can be completely self interested and still give your time and attention to a woman. She loves the attention and you love the sex. It’s a win win.

  20. Vicomte

    Hero, I believe you missed the connotation of the term ‘intimate’, which I believe was chosen for a reason, as opposed to other options for ‘fuck’.

    WN can correct me if I’m wrong.

  21. Hero

    @Vicomte

    I don’t think I missed the connotation but I can see that you are thrown off by my saying something like “She loves the attention and you love the sex. It’s a win win.”

    In my mind, selfish and uncaring don’t mean that I have to actively try to hurt someone. Also, selfish and uncaring don’t mean that I can’t have deep feelings for someone.

    I define it as selfish means that I put my own needs and care first. When you put someone else first you open yourself up to them misusing their power over you. Whether that person is bad, good, or indifferent you giving them your power may have profound effects on what happens to you.

    I define uncaring as meaning that I am not attached to the outcome. I can take it or leave it.

    Now, my needs may involve doing something “nice” for a woman like changing a tire or reaching something on a high shelf. I recognize that I do things like this for myself because it feels good for me to do so. My needs may also mean wanting to experience an emotional connection that I feel deeply with a woman.

    One of the problems with discussions like this is that men often define things in male terms and assume they apply to women. I pushed back on the comments because I think that when men make comments like these that they are living in their heads, not experimenting with their lives, and not taking the time to actually observe the behavior of women.

    I find men still asking the question “don’t women really want a nice guy?” and the problem with that question is that what they are actually saying “I would really like to be treated nicely and so I should act nicely because that’s the way I would like a woman to treat me.”

    Well guess what, no woman besides your mother wants to do that for you just because you want it. A woman will treat you nicely only when she wants to. Not before, not after and not just because you want her to. There’s a big difference there. What men need to focus on is how to get a woman to that point where she really wants to do that for you.

    So the question is “do you want a woman to be good to you?” Then how do you make that happen? It’s not by modeling nice behavior to them, I’ll tell you that much.

  22. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/12/12 « Free Northerner

  23. Pingback: Game and the Single Christian Man « Free Northerner

  24. There are popular and well known PUA who strongly disagree that aloofness is important, and even go so far as to speak out directly against it.

    There is no denying that many people vouch for it, but I think the data tells us that this is not a universal style, or the only successful style, or even the most successful style.

  25. OMG! Why am I just now finding this posts!???

    I have much to learn…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s