After reading through the comments of this post, I feel the urge to counter some of the common objections that deniers of Game bring forth.
My definition of game is: The study of how male behaviour affects female attraction. Game is simply the set of behaviours that give a man more options than he would have without those behaviours. Game is thus effective, literally by definition.
No man can disagree in good faith that some actions are more likely than others to make a woman want to sleep with you. For example, shitting your pants on a date is generally considered bad game. Pants-shitters get laid less than non-pant-shitters. In the same vein, walking, talking, standing and moving in certain ways will make it easier for you to get laid. The men who argue that game doesn’t work usually argue as follows: “[Famous pickup artist] says that you should [exaggerated reductio ad absurdum of standard tactic]! But that’s stupid! What woman would be attracted to that?”
But even in the rare case where the doubter has identified an actual example of shitty game advice, the existence of bad game doesn’t invalidate the entire concept, any more than one disproved theory invalidates the scientific method. Game is a science, in which a few ideas and practices are widely accepted as true, and a great many others are bounced around and experimented with. Even among tactics and techniques that some men have proven to be successful via their own experimentation, every man needs to tailor his game to his own personality. In fact, that’s the whole point of my post on Why Game is Different For Good-Looking Men.
Being fake is not a bad thing
I’m not going to disagree with this objection at all. Game and self-improvement more generally are all about being fake.
For example, when I first started learning game, I realized that I should do a much better job of holding eye contact while talking to people. I started making a conscious effort to train myself to make strong eye contact. I changed. Was this inauthentic? Was I trying to impress people by being fake? Absolutely.
But what the hell is the problem with that? I have some bad news for any eighteen your old men reading this: You suck. Twenty-five year old men: You almost certainly suck. Men who are even older than that: You still probably suck. It’s a fact that we all enter our adult bodies as complete retards. We don’t understand the world. We don’t understand women. We are just clueless assholes, scrambling unconsciously through life. Ask a man what age he started to have it all “pretty much figured out” and he’ll tell you exactly when he got lazy and started spinning his wheels.
Advocates of game say that men should rebel against our default cluelessness. We should fight through our mediocrity and better ourselves. Yes, this involves changing from one version of yourself into another. Is that fake? If so, then let’s all try to be as fake as possible. As my friends can and frequently do attest, I am a smug, self-assured asshole with a grandiose sense of self-worth. I am awesome. But if my future self doesn’t leave the man typing this post choking in the dust with the accomplishments, skills and wisdom he accumulates over time, I will be very disappointed in him.
Game is synonymous with good social skills
Here’s an example of a new, non-obvious and immediately applicable piece of game that I recently learned and integrated into my personality: The key to having good, mutually enjoyable conversations with people is to structure your words in such a way as to give your partner multiple hooks to grab onto when you speak, rather than launch into a monologue about whatever you feel like talking about.
This sounds basic and I bet some of you are rolling your eyes and saying, Duh! Of course! But you’ll be surprised how common of a social miscue this is, when you start to look for it. I consider myself a socially adept person, but I never fully realized this basic idea until it was spelled out for me in Roosh’s Day Bang. Roosh describes these hooks (“bait”) mainly in the context of encouraging recently approached women to personally invest in conversations, but the idea is also applicable more broadly. Try keeping this idea at the forefront of your mind while having conversations with co-workers and other random people, and you’ll see an immediate improvement in the flow of your exchanges.
Men have no choice but to learn game
Some men, most of whom a generation or two beyond me in years, have decided that their experiences with women have historically been more negative than positive, and so would like to end their dealings with the fairer sex for good. You can find a community of such men at Men Going Their Own Way forums, and while some MGTOW’ers understand and appreciate the effectiveness of game, many consider the use of game to be demeaning and weak.
One response to this is that being fake is not a bad thing, as outlined above.
But even if the anti-gamers are right, and seducing really is a weak and low desire for a man to indulge in: So what? The urge to sleep with hot women is one of our basic desires, and we will never be rid of it (especially not in our mid-20s) no matter how hard we try. And I have no desire to try.
Do I implicitly confess to lacking power in my relationships with women, by assuming the mindset of an animal in a Lek while in their presence? Perhaps. But I just don’t care. I want hot women. My desire gives them power. No amount of mental gymnastics will ever release me from that desire. So rather than lie to myself, I attempt to reclaim that power by making myself more desirable. For the gender warriors out in the audience, take note: Game is the great equalizer in the male-female power struggle. Learning how to be attractive gives you strength, while making women and blue-pill taking men weak. Giving up on being attractive might be the smart path for an older man who doesn’t have the energy and testosterone to pursue women anymore, but it’s a cowards way out for anyone else.