💋Science💋 has once again dropped to its knees and slobbered the knob of CH, vindicating the Heartistian observation that women love laconic men.
For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. […]
When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine.
Terse charm > loquacious charm > charmlessness. Gabby men are simply not very attractive to women. Men who keep their cards close and don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves are sexier to women. Men whose jokes are powerfully succinct rather than tiresomely pedantic are considered socially savvier. Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the stroke of clits.
There are times when following the exception to this rule will be personally beneficial, but you should strive to express yourself more laconically, more pithily, as you work to craft your new sexy identity.
They found that people are naturally drawn to friends and colleagues with voices that sound familiar.
People prefer those who have a similar accent, intonation and tone of voice to themselves, for example.
Theoretically, group selection shouldn’t exist, but in practice there’s a lot of evidence for some sort of in-group favoritism motivating human interaction.
I just wonder if there are a couple outliers if you’re adept at weaving emotional language (think romance novels and the gabbers at RSD). Perhaps you can charm them glibly and then go a bit aloof so hamster wants a pellet.
LikeLike
RSD Nation? Haven’t looked at that in ages, what’s it like these days?
I guess what put me off with “PUA” stuff is calling adherents “artists” without even joking; the idea that every man could become an expert by buying the material. The gurus are so obviously mercenary. But it couldn’t be any other way, once they do it as their full-time job; you don’t tell potential buyers “only buy this if you are one of those who could actually make it work”. And of course, the material is essentially correct. Just not the one-two-three-success sales pitches.
LikeLike
marketing is inherently mendacious, because it has to be. otherwise people wouldn’t buy anything but the essentials for survival and whatever their neighbors are buying.
LikeLike
[…] Study: Women Prefer Men Of Few Words […]
LikeLike
Yo this is in reply to Scray when he posted this comment a couple posts back: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/amish-facebook/#comment-562596
“I dunno wtf this is. Isn’t trying to make rules for a chick beta? Is this a shit test? I’d love to just tell her what to do, but I don’t really know what the right play is.”
I wanted to say that you need to choose a bit more leadership especially in laying down boundaries. I get what you’re trying to do by “withdrawing” but even then I think you’re messing up the execution.
1) Withdrawing/being aloof because you have other things going on: DHV
2) Withdrawing/being aloof because you don’t have other things going on: DLV
Now you’re in a bit of a pickle because you’re dealing with an HB8 and you don’t want to express neediness by laying down the law and saying you don’t want her to go to event xyz.
But Scray, I believe it was you in the past who said that express however you feel…just do it from the right mindset.
The fact that you’re trying to not act needy is needy in-and-of-itself. Coincide this with the fact that this chick is your only right now and you may have a bad time down the road. My suggestion is that you either:
1) Act distant but be sure to have other things/chicks going on.
2) Enforce boundaries but don’t do it from a place of scarcity.
YOU GOT THIS
I’ll provide an example of the first….
The HB6.5/7 cutie Asian I’ve been seeing. She has a knack for not responding when I’m trying to firm up plans. It’s happened a couple times before.
Initially I would just wait until the next day and hit her with the “?” an she would reply immediately and apologize for how busy she was.
But 2 months in and she pulled something similar recently. Instead of getting angry or calling her out (wasn’t OK doing this) I went about it this way:
Me: [Confirming plans/logistics…leaving out details per YaReally’s advice.] Does that work for you?
**No response from her even though she was responding frequently up until that point.**
I go to a party that evening and eventually send this text 8 hours later after I had number-closed a Latina there and setup plans w/ the Latina for drinks later in the week. Wanted to send this from a position of strength:
Me: Hey cutie nvr heard back from u so i locked up other plans for tues. Will make it up to ya : )
– (2 hours later) –
Her: whaaa
Her: I said Tuesday was a go, no?
Her: So quick to move!
– (2 hours later) –
Her: ok. well lmk, Immoral : )
– (Next morning) –
Her: hi. ur not mad / annoyed r u
Me: Melissa wtf are u talking about
Her: lol ok. I realized my text could have been interpreted as a vague answer and that could be annoying
Her: Bc that has happened to me v recently and just wanted to make sure Her: well I am glad we r communicating [thumbs up emoji] will talk to u later : )
So yes. My schedule opened up that night and I was able to do xyz plans with her that night instead of the tues. It all worked out and she was intrigued as to what plans I had made in lieu of seeing her tues (“Going out for drinks with friends”) and trust that she was a lot more responsive to my texts and smitten when she was with me.
Hopefully that answers your conundrum. I think you have enough pull with your HB8 to lay down boundaries…make sure you have options, lifestyle, inner-game to back it up.
-IG
LikeLike
‘The fact that you’re trying to not act needy is needy in-and-of-itself. ‘
For shure, man. Like….when I’m on the hunt, I get into a really good headspace. But when I get what I want, I just….I dunno. It’s a combination of restlessness, fear, etc.
That txt exchange is boss tho.
I’m good at being tight for about like……a month, and then shit just gets gay.
Ya, but going forward I’ll just have something to do.
LikeLike
This is probably the only time my personal experience flies in the exact opposite direction. My “chatty” friends seem to do better with women. Small sample size?
LikeLike
the dynamic goes something like this:
laconic men > chatty men > shy men.
chatty men do well with women because they bust a move when most men are silently sticking their hands in their pockets. but over time, laconic men likely evoke the most sexual attraction in women.
LikeLike
Speaking from experience I agree with this, 100% in the realms of initial attraction and seduction..
However, how does this translate into LTRs?
Once they’ve slowly peeled the laconic layers back, and earned your commitment etc, does longer more involved conversations kill or spike attraction in a girl in love?
LikeLike
There’s the rub.
I became more verbose as my previous LTR dragged on, and regret it.
I’m more of an introvert – by speaking more I entered her reality.
LikeLike
… by speaking more I entered her reality.
COTW…
This is what I keep trying to tell you clowns when you engage the hamsters on this very forum.
Wise old owl sitting on an oak…
The more he saw, the less he spoke…
The less he spoke, the more he’d see…
Wise old owl, sitting in his tree.
LikeLike
Nah, less is more IRL…not just texting. Chatty guys can do very well if theyre going on about the right things…otherwise its just annoying.
LikeLike
everybodyhatesscott, read a blog called A Dark Heart from 2012-2013. (Now ended – he got a girlfriend, and he had said all he wanted to say anyway.) Highly interesting, by a guy who works part-time as a bartender, and who I know reads CH and other blogs. He speaks very much from experience. He has the “James Bond style” as he calls it, not talking too much. He finds that women listen to him more in a group when he has that style. (He also has washboard abs and knows how to play the game, so this is just one of the things he does.)
Dammit, the blog doesn’t show up when I go to the URL now. I know it’s blank periodically, just hope he hasn’t taken it down for good. It is seriously some of the best reading in the manosphere.
LikeLike
“Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the stroke of clits.” Great line
I do not talk that much, but when I do I Focus on Tonality and make sure everyone can hear me, Speak from your BAllS men
LikeLike
There was a time when, believe it or not, I only watched Korean TV ( on internet) and almost never anything else, so I couldn’t relate to many people, I only talked about it, plus I stayed at my house most of the time and didn’t have any kind of gossip
LikeLike
You are Korean then, I take it; judging from the picture and your blog’s name.
Honestly, there is some anime that I like, the more adult kind. It is like a fresh air to see something that doesn’t contain the assumptions you see in most Hollywood material. You have to know where to search to find the best, though. And it’s sad when Western youth get hooked on that, almost as sad as when they get hooked on Hollywood stuff. It’s like they don’t know the wealth of real Western culture they could read up on. Pick up a Jack London novel, for example.
It’s like when people want music that is fast, and they pick hiphop because that’s all they know, that’s all they see around them. And they are unaware of what you can find in power metal.
LikeLike
Show us on the doll where your uncle touched you.
LikeLike
Nooo, I am a foreign fan and I meant I was obsessed with that stuff, in many places I was a man of fewer words, since my life was being inside a house hanging out on internet like watching Korean stuff, I even leave my TV, and only when my modem did broke I started to watch a little of non-Asian tv, if you knew the me at that time, ps and I am still waiting for some gay game …
LikeLike
yeah, and if you’re white, the fewer f#cking words you say, the smaller target you’ll be at a worthless college orientation this sh!t: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/harvards-kennedy-school-will-make-white-privilege-training-mandatory-for-orientation/
LikeLike
Haah. True.
LikeLike
Women prefer the strong and silent type. I’ve always suspected it, so it’s nice to see it vindicated,
Chatty men who talk too much and with robust, exaggerated expression and gestures come across as less masculine to me. Unfortunately, in certain industries and jobs, this type seems to predominate.
LikeLike
exaggerated expressions can be used to great effect by men during the attraction sage of seduction, as long as they’re done with a veneer of comical self-awareness. chicks dig manufactured drama. but these early game tactics are like seasoning; too much and you spoil the whole dinner.
LikeLike
Also, somehow, Italian men are stereotyped as being that way, but also as being great with women.
LikeLike
I learned a long time ago, the best way to appeal to women is through actions rather than words. So rather than telling her what you are going to do, just do it. That is why I learned how to sky-dive in tandem – nothing like throwing yourself out of an airplane at 15,000 feet and hurdling toward the ground at 150 mph to get her juices flowing.
Like the old adage goes – women say, men do.. We can have a thousand studies to prove what everyone has known for years, and in general we do, and then people turn a blind eye to it, for a simple reason, it shows clearly that Men are MEN, and Women are WOMEN, and they aren’t the same – end of discussion… And Feminists and Liberals hate that simple truth…
LikeLike
I completely agree with this, which is why it’s hard to understand how the Russell Brand type does well with women. But somehow they do.
LikeLike
Amy, Russell Brand is a very charismatic guy. He seems to be feminine in his psychology, (he’s a liberal and cringingly spiritual in a atheist way(if that makes sense). I think he is endearing. A manly man? No way! He is more like a lost baby boy, who needs help kind of endearing.
I can certainly understand that women on the pill or with hormonal imbalances would find him attractive, though.
LikeLike
The handsome, manly men are obviously not always silent, but when they speak their words have gravity. It shows a certain wisdom, that a man is understanding that words are not always necessary.
For example, Rhett from Gone with the wind, he did not speak so much, in the movie his actions speak louder than his words. But when he DOES speak, it is powerful and manly, and does not lack gravity. Compare him to Russell Brand, who talks without even thinking, it seems. Babbling and mindless chatter is incredibly woman-like.
LikeLike
I can certainly understand that women on the pill or with hormonal imbalances would find him attractive, though.
This has, I’ve argued before, perhaps contributed to the increase in less manly males in recent decades, a result of women on the Pill seeking out and breeding with feminine men.
LikeLike
@ Laguna Beach Fogey. Yes, undoubtedly.
These unnatural things lead to unnatural preference, and what we are seeing in this generation, is very much the result of these unnatural preferences as result of artificial hormones in women, in my opinion!
Seriously, the whole manosphere and other places talk about the fall of women in the last decades, but women were controlled quite okay, before, yes? So what is in the water/ or the “pill”, to suddenly make this out of control? Something is going on, that is for sure. Even you men who are into “game” have to modify it for different types of women these days, because the truth is, the preference of a village woman eating natural food, never having taken these synthetic hormones, is going to be drastically different to the preference of many city women, eating processed foods, and taking the pill since the onset of menses.
If the women pumped with these artificial hormones choose to mate, they are mating with the feminine men, going completely against nature, and in my opinion, greatly contributes to the downfall of a decent society. Just a theory. 🙂
LikeLike
That Brand is a disgusting chatter box but what about men who know how to speak,who use the language and oratory skills as a weapon of mass seduction, who have the voice of devil that invites you to surrender fully, completely and with no restraint?
Or do you always prefer mute just because you wild imagination will make out it anything it desires?
“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”
― Maurice Switzer
LikeLike
Nice quote.
Brand is a chatter box, yes.
I just said in my last comment that the most important thing is that a man speaks with real gravity. The voice of the devil, uh oh, that sounds a bit weird and cheesy, really.
But for those men who speak well, and have CONFIDENCE in what they are speaking, why not? It is just that speaking without even coming up for air, tends to scream, “I am nervous, and trying to impress!” . 🙂 .
LikeLike
He isn’t great with women. Just ask Katy Perry.
LikeLike
Preselection. Brand is well known (certainly in the UK gossip columns) for having had a lot of beautiful women. That just ups his appeal for women.
“You’ve had lots of lovely women
Now you turn your gaze to me
Weighing the beauty and the imperfection
To see if I’m worthy”
as Joni Mitchell sang (her lyrics are very honest and very CH).
LikeLike
“which is why it’s hard to understand how the Russell Brand type does well with women. But somehow they do.”
Very simple, this blog has sample size issues. Not everyone is the same. Russel brand is your cool friend that everyone liked from highschool. No feminine bullshit about it.
The reality is sites like this blog and the manosphere in general look at the world of human relationships through distorted lenses.
People are human beings, I’ve connected to girls over deep conversations about bad awful things. Attraction is bout finding similarities and making connections, you can attract people through various means: Physically, or through common interests/meeting of minds.
Many manosphere blogs are run by people of average intelligence and who have serious social deficits so their views tend to be skewed.
LikeLike
Yes exactly. Women do prefer the silent type, talkative men are quite irritating and woman-like.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
LOL Thread winner!
LikeLike
I ate dinner recently with a girl who is pretty introverted. When we have conversations, we tease each other and the interactions go pretty well (she mimics my body language and facial expressions).
I’m usually initiating the conversation and she keep it going. However, sometimes I just stay silent and don’t say anything and she looks like she wants me to initiate conversation again. At times she asks “What are you thinking?”…
Should I be more laconic even though she seems to enjoy when I talk more? Or does me being silent help me because it changes up the pace?
LikeLike
This is where you break out a CH classic…. “I’m thinking whether it would be better to be reincarnated as a cat or dog…” Used it once during a lull in pillow talk, she had a good laugh and didnt ask me that shit again.
LikeLike
Okay, so how would one apply this to cold approach Daygame?
In the initial stages I find myself doing the majority of the gab…is it possible that this is more applicable to relationship game; I.e. after the first few tustles in the hay? By then you’d have the right amount of “hand,” I’d assume.
LikeLike
short answer: yes.
long answer: don’t get too hung up on your wordiness when you first approach a woman. talking a lot beats not talking at all, and when a girl is trying to figure you out, talking less than you should could backfire and make you seem weird. i suspect the study is most relevant to women who are already in some kind of dating relationship with a man.
LikeLike
In my opinion, it depends on the kind of woman you are trying to attract. Heartiste just said talking less than normal can make you seem like a weirdo, and yes that is very true. But normally only extroverted woman are going to feel that way. Introverted woman might prefer it, because if a man starts talking on and on and on to an introverted women, it can be very intimidating and annoying.
My opinion (of course you do not have to take it seriously, I am a woman), is that you should first try to understand if the woman is a crazy outgoing woman, or a quieter one. More quiet women tend to prefer the quiet, intellectual vibe. Louder women are probably going to love it when you just talk, and talk, and talk.
How can you understand if woman is quieter one or crazier? Well, first of all you can look at her clothing style, as a rule of thumb quieter women are going to be more neutral colored clothing, and louder women not so much. But as I understand, you men have a radar for that stuff. 🙂
It is also depending on what you are looking for in a woman, if you want a serious woman to love, go for that quiet woman, and forget about all those mindless words.
More important, overall, than your words, is your attitude behind it. I guess what people in this circle call “frame”. A confident man with a strong masculine confidence, honestly can pull off either extroversion or introversion. What matters is the frame and virtue behind it. Sure, a talkative man can be a little irritating, as this posts explains, but your frame behind it could make it okay.
If you are an introvert man, go with that and build on it. If you are outgoing, build your approach to women on that. Your approach to women is going to be much better if it is built on the foundation of your true character and genuinity.
LikeLike
Gotcha
LikeLike
I agree with this assessment. You really have to sell yourself with day game, all the while making it appear that you’re not trying to sell yourself.
LikeLike
I talk very little and I tend to sound cynical half the time. It does attract female attention. However, a lot of women think I am trying to impress them when I am not. Being chatty can get you action only if you are extremely popular but from what I have seen guys that talk a lot and get women, get mediocre women at best. Not to mention if you are ‘easy to talk to’ you are just asking to be friend zoned.
LikeLike
It is important to note that in this study shortness means the time it takes you to say each word not the length of the word itself and all individuals read the same words so conciseness was not measured.
From the study itself:
“Duration: Males typically have shorter durations than females [46]. This was measured from the onset to offset of spectral energy for each word and averaged for each talker.”
The only significant results this study had was:
“This indicates that listeners were more likely to rate a male voice as attractive if it had lower F1 values for /i/ and /u/, suggesting a larger back cavity. Male voices were also rated as more attractive if their productions were on average shorter in duration.”
or deeper sounding i and u and shorter word duration.
LikeLike
interesting. does this mean that men who speak with a staccato cadence are sexier than men who speak slowly or with a drawl? my impression is that slow speakers from the south are perceived as attractive by women. like bill clinton.
LikeLike
“my impression is that slow speakers from the south are perceived as attractive by women”
Yeeeeeeeeessss. A drawl makes a woman hang on your words.
LikeLike
Seems to be another respect in which Jewish men are seen as effeminate – loquacious in a whiny tone.
LikeLike
lol no. This is the same as txt game.
It’s not that most women find laconic txt game more attractive, it’s that most guys suck donkey dick at txt game so they fuck the seduction/attraction up less when they’re laconic.
The less you say the less you’ll fuck up if your game is shitty (and 99% of guys’ game is shitty or actively anti-poon horrible), so ya, they should be laconic, because the more they say the more they’ll fuck it up.
If you’re saying the right shit you can attract with verbosity. On top of that, in a cold approach situ the laconic guy is often not approaching and gets steamrolled in set. Go ahead and lean against the bar pretending to be James Bond, I’ll be taking your girl on an emotional wordy rollercoaster of attraction till she forgets you exist lol
Like him or hate him, there’s no other man in the room when Russell Brand opens his mouth. EVERYONE goes into spectator-mode when you combine verbosity with saying sexual/attractive things.
Now if you just yammer away about stupid pointless unattractive shit, then ya, people just find you annoying. Same way if you txt retarded shitty game, girls will find you unattractive. If your game sucks shit go ahead and be laconic lol or better, talk as much as you like and accept the initial losses to learn the calibration so that you’re not holding back or pushing yourself, you’re simply being who you are.
LikeLike
Your disagreement with laconic text game has always interested me, especially because your posts seem pretty insightful. I tried searching online and read some of your advice about it in the archives. For the guys out there that are interested, here’s one example:
http://yareallyarchive.com/2013/5/#comment-heartiste-440730
I suggest others check it out. That point about this all depending on whether or not you’ve reached the “hook” was food for thought.
LikeLike
I disagree because my game is highly verbal. I tried laconic because I bought into the “you gotta’ be James Bond” thing too, but there are way too many drawbacks to it if you aren’t a naturally stand-out looking guy. I’m just an average dude, no girls’ heads turn when I walk into the room. If I go post up at the bar, at best I have an uggo or two open me, but hot girls aren’t running up to get my attention.
But then I see what other guys say and text and it’s fucking brutal. And I’m like “wow, you should’ve just said nothing. YOU need to be laconic because when you’re verbose you say stupid shit that isn’t productive or conducive to getting laid.” That’s where studies like this come from. It’s not that less words = more attraction, it’s that less words = less fucking up on the guy’s part which = girls losing less attraction which theoretically LOOKS like “less words = more attraction”.
And sure, Russell Brand and myself are “outliers” in the sense that we can make it work while other guys fuck it up but it’s not because we’re magical wizards, it’s because we went through all the awkward social mistakes and miscalibrations and putting in hours of running game to learn exactly HOW to be our natural verbose selves and make it work.
Russell doesn’t just talk about stupid shit, he makes witty pointed observations and turns everything into sexual innuendo and pushes interactions forward with women escalating sexually thru his verbals. Meanwhile other guys ramble about puppydogs and ice cream and then go “this verbose thing doesn’t WORK, it doesn’t WORK, those guys are just outliers, James Bond is better”. No, you just suck at it and say the wrong shit.
That’s why I can do so much of my sarge in my txt game with my massive multiple full-screen paragraphs of txts in a row. Shitting all over the jumbotron and yet, I get laid. Why? Because I’m not txting a paragraph about puppydogs and ice cream, I’m txting fucking rock solid game building Attraction and Comfort/Rapport and running wicked-solid game in my verbose texts.
But other guys who fuck up would be better either going with a more laconic txt style (which will only work if they’re high-value enough anyway, so they better have made a solid 1st impression, I can make a weak 1st impression and recover in txt), or pushing through the pain period of weirding girls out and feeling awkward until they learn the calibration and how to wield it.
Are either laconic or verbose better? No, it comes down to which is more congruent to your personality. How do you interact with your close buddies over beer and xbox, are you laconic or verbose? That’s who you are. Cultivate that and learn to make it work. That’s the key. Both methods come with pros and cons, but both work just fine. This study was done by people who don’t understand game lol
LikeLike
Even if you are good at verbose text game – what an investment (to me ‘waste’) of time that is. The shorter the text can be and the greater the infrequency of a sent text, the better IMO.
However – in a mixed social setting I completely agree with the rest of what you said. The ultra-direct John Wayne route can work, but in the current swpl milieu I’ve found it far more advantageous to talk generously with everyone in the place, and then confidently transition into the playfully sexual realm when the opportunity presents itself (and it will) within that talkative back-and-forth context.
Just saying or whispering sexually-charged comments out of the blue can work though if your internals are rock solid. But it can also result in being ostracized in that gathering of folks – for example, if clumsily and carelessly forced upon the wrong target and/or when you’re having an off-night.
LikeLike
“what an investment (to me ‘waste’) of time that is.”
I find interacting with other people (especially cute flirty sexual girls) to be fun and entertaining, so I don’t view it as a waste of time.
But then, I find sitting in front of a TV watching Game of Thrones or a football game or movies a waste of time. To me if a guy is saying “txting girls is too much time investment” but he’s flipping thru the boob-tube watching reality TV or playing xBox it’s like, ok you spend your free time how you like and I’ll spend mine how I like lol
It comes down to this for me:
“Well what if I DO think approaching sucks. What if I don’t like talking? You tell me to be myself and I don’t like to talk! I just like to put my little dick in a hole and pump away!! These girls are fuckin’ stupid, I’m a smart guy, I don’t wanna TALK, I just wanna’ fuck them!!”
lol I’m not saying this is you, but I’m saying newbie guys shouldn’t view interacting with women as a waste of time or work you have to do to stick your dick in something. That’s the same as only being friends with people based on “what can I get out of this person? what value can I take with the least effort possible? I don’t want to waste my time interacting with this person if I’m not getting something out of it!” It’s an unhealthy mindset to get into in the long-run.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, my point though is that unless i’m texting actual friends or family, texting is just a tool to facilitate being face to face with a chick. I get annoyed at the back and forth whereas I genuinely enjoy an in-person interaction. Spending too much time/energy texting a chick one hasn’t yet banged is also a DLV and sets a poor precedent for future interactions. Think you’d probably agree with that, correct if wrong. To be forthcoming though, now that I’m in LTR I do allow one ~30-minute phone convo per week, which is mainly her talking at me. But that’s a gift to her, partially due to my insistence on limiting the time we spend together. It’s a small compromise, as I don’t particularly enjoy it.
Thanks for the RSD video, they have some good stuff.
“lol I’m not saying this is you, but I’m saying newbie guys shouldn’t view interacting with women as a waste of time or work you have to do to stick your dick in something. That’s the same as only being friends with people based on “what can I get out of this person? what value can I take with the least effort possible? I don’t want to waste my time interacting with this person if I’m not getting something out of it!” It’s an unhealthy mindset to get into in the long-run.”
I completely agree with that. The ‘Sphere could use more of that messaging. Adding value and giving-to-give are keys to a great life, period.
LikeLike
@Steve H
ya I hear that. Plus a guy who legitimately has a busy life doesn’t have time to txt much. Someone working an extremely hectic 9-5 needs to spend his time on a Day2 in the evening. I work my own hours so I can txt all day.
My point is more that it works and there are benefits to it, rather than that it’s the best method for gaming…like I don’t want guys to think “okay I have to be laconic because this other way can’t work” but there aren’t a lot of guys who purposely practice this way and can vouch for it.
“Spending too much time/energy texting a chick one hasn’t yet banged is also a DLV and sets a poor precedent for future interactions”
This all depends on what you’re txting. I txt a bunch with girls I haven’t banged, but everything I’m txting is letting her know my views on sex/monogamy/relationships, it’s building deep Comfort, it’s sexual roleplaying, and it’s leading things toward the bang. Most guys txt gay shit about puppydogs and ice cream that doesn’t take the interaction toward the goal so for them it’s a DLV because they’re happy with just “any” attention from her, whereas I focus all our conversations toward very specific goals that result in the lay, so when I txt a bunch before we’ve banged it’s not a DLV and can often be a DHV because what i’m txting is so far beyond what the average “so how was ur day? cool that’s good my day was okay too” Joe is txting her.
“my point though is that unless i’m texting actual friends or family, texting is just a tool to facilitate being face to face with a chick.”
The tradeoff is that I don’t generally have to do Day2s or the Day2s that I do are extremely short. Like we meet up and have one drink and it’s back to my place. That’s my normal Day2. And often I don’t even have to do that, I can get them to just come pick me up and when they buzz my apartment I come down and make out with them in the lobby and just take them upstairs to bang.
For me, a Day2 is a “waste” because it costs money and time and I have to put on pants (lol). So by running a lot of my game via txt, I get to skip the traditional Day2 that other guys have to do.
If I was doing the amount of txting I do and ALSO going on these 3-5 hour long, $20-$40 Day2s (and sometimes Day3s) where I’m dealing with an hour or two of LMR once I get them home on top of that, then ya it would definitely seem like a waste to me. But I’ll take shooting a few txts out thru the day or a big txting session when I’m chilling at home bored over investing in a big Day2 like that.
Pros and cons to both methods, like I say. My main point is that if you’re a verbose kind of guy, you shouldn’t hold back on it…just understand that you might have a little more of a learning curve to make it work for you, but that once you get it it can be just as powerful (more powerful in group situations even) than the laconic stuff that everyone heralds as the way to go (because lets face it, learning to say/txt less is a LOT easier than learning to make being verbose work, so of course more people will have success with that).
All comes down to congruency.
LikeLike
A note about Russell Brand: I’m surprised there are men interested in game that don’t like him. I for one love watching his interviews to learn a thing or two.
Russell radiates both passion and charisma and usually announces sexual intent VERY early in any interaction with an attractive woman. It’s true that he uses so many words and speaks so quickly that he doesn’t appear to have a filter. Of course, for someone to be his age and have no filter, that suggests that he has to be quite charming if he can get away with it, no? People do what works.
My suspicion is that women enjoy his energy because 1) women want to feel desired, 2) perhaps women assume men who display such passion and social freedom outside the bedroom are equally ravenous behind closed doors, and 3) from what I’ve seen, though he’s lascivious, he’s also terribly non-needy. One of my favorites is this brief video where he attempts to seduce, live on national television, a woman that he doesn’t know is actually married. Notice how he’s “all gas pedal” – he plays to win, not to not lose as Owen would say. That is, until he discovers her status:
Fun watch.
LikeLike
Maybe he’s drunk and using Arthur Game on her. American chicks love it when drunk Englishmen come on to them.
LikeLike
@byronic: you are right about (1) and (3). I disagree about (2); I would think the opposite. The thing is, a guy like Brand is fun and charismatic and silly and I’d have a blast flirting with him, and he’d say outrageous things to me and I’d laugh, but none of that means I’m attracted to a guy. I know guys like him (and that redhead YaReally always posts about) and they ARE fun to be with, they definitely get an audience with tons of hot girls, but that’s not the same as sexual attraction. To me this is a friendzone guy. He’s just not masculine.
LikeLike
His style is to get you isolated and escalate on you. He knows you aren’t looking at him going “wow what a manly sexy beast I want to suck his dick”. He knows that to bang you he would have to get you away from everyone else and in a good state and just escalate on you. You might not be like “wow I crave his cock he’s manly like a badass lumberjack cowboy”, but certain things make chicks wet (even if an ugly guy is doing them) and he simply creates a situation where you’re like “sure, why not lolz” rather than “god yes please take me!!!”
That’s how guys like this handle your type. A lot of early community stuff was based on this…hiding your dick and being her gay BFF until you get her isolated in the bedroom and then make her horny and escalate and she’s just like “sure, why not lolz” and they get the lay. This was like, the bread & butter of early PUA indirect game lol And the girls who think it won’t work on them are usually the easiest to do it on because they don’t expect to have to be on the defense at all…same way you could lead a little kid into a white van with some candy, they aren’t expecting to be on their guard.
You’re making your judgement based on “how would I react to this guy if he acted exactly this way all the way to the bedroom, or in a public situation and/or long-term dating situation, could I see myself with this guy or sexually attracted to this guy? No.” But that’s because you don’t understand how we switch into sexual escalation from this mode and push for the single lay in private in a very convenient situation in the heat of the moment with your emotions triggering, not when you’re sitting at home in your pyjama pants thinking logically.
But of course, you probably won’t agree with this. Because girls don’t understand how their own brains work lol
LikeLike
Hey, fair enough… but show me a video of him *successfully* escalating on a girl like me who’s presumptively friendzoning him. Getting her to drunkenly kiss him and say “oh, you’re sooooo fun I looooove you” doesn’t count, I do that to my gay boyfriends ALL the time and I don’t have sex with them. And frankly I haven’t seen anything different than that dynamic in any of these videos. That redhead protege of yours does well because he’s like a little nonthreatening leprechaun… not attractive so you can drunkenly kiss him and it’s safe, lol. Because you know you’d never go home with him or take him seriously, he’s just your fun gay bf.
LikeLike
@YaReally, @Amy Interesting comments on both fronts.
LikeLike
@Amy
Of course. Also game only works on bar sluts and would never work on an educated intelligent woman who isn’t a slutty slut who spreads her legs. I mean, show me videos of it working, I want to see his dick going in and out of her vagina or it doesn’t work!!! Trust me I KNOW.
lol. This is why we didn’t let girls contribute in the old community days. Such a waste of hamster nonsense.
LikeLike
@Yareally
Lol, this is your go-to tactic when you don’t have an answer and you look like an ass. Why can’t Mr. Secret Camera Man get some vid of what goes on after they leave the club? In the cab on their way to the alleged threesome?
I’ve drunkenly kissed girls in clubs bc some guy pushed us together but that’s a faaaaaar cry from me hopping in a cab to have a threesome with two people I just met, one of whom isn’t even cute. If you really do go to clubs, you would KNOW it’s not as easy as he makes it out to be. You would know some girls are just going to wander off or shake loose or otherwise turn you down.
Other guys have raised the same questions about the difference between drunk flirtation vs. actually scoring sex but hey, don’t let that distract you from shrill ad hominem attacks. Lol
LikeLike
He’s hilarious. I always picture the host as being a more masculine version of Russell Brand.
LikeLike
He’s great in all those wildly-overconfident unshakeable-frame, entertaining, mostly-self-amused ways, but ultimately an insufferable c*nt.
-For the simple reason that he is Not Interesting+Interested. He is amusing, occasionally-funny, and Interesting. He is not Interested.
Nor is he about [pickup podcast’s patented-term] mutual-value-escalation. He is about Russell’s-value-escalation. So net-net: A value-vacuum.
He would never pull a @YaReally and throw girls at other guys, for example.
But otherwise worth serious study for his entire range of skills & techniques with women.
-Even though Craig Ferguson does almost all of it better, in addition to being a solid guy who could hold an actual conversation with an actual human being.
LikeLike
Theoretically, group selection shouldn’t exist, but in practice there’s a lot of evidence for some sort of in-group favoritism motivating human interaction.
Classic example: Kim Hunter played Dr. Zira, the female chimp in Planet of the Apes, 1968. To keep track of the extras and actors they wore different colors on their jackets during breaks: I think it was green for chimpanzees, orange for orangutans and black for gorillas.
She noted that the actors preferred to socialize with those who wore the same color jackets. They would stand there chatting in groups, and each group would be a different color.
Perhaps because if you would be the only one with another color you would stand out. Now, why would standing out be a problem? Because people instinctively find strength in quick and tacit agreements of cooperation with those who look the same, since these are normally the ones you share language, position and goals with.
The instinct is extremely strong. Why, to neutralize it – or at least to keep people from expressing it – you would need daily convincing and threats through some form of media, placed in people’s living rooms, say.
LikeLike
Just because there’s in-group favoritism doesn’t mean that a member of the out-group cannot become a part of the in group or that in-groups and out-groups cannot cooperate to reach great ends.
While daily threats can work, more effective are 1) receptivity 2) common goals/interests and 3) face-time, i.e. comfort. In general, the more you see someone’s face, the more attractive you find them and the more you like/feel an affinity for them. Amplify this if you share similar values and/or motives and aspirations (most people share a few basic motivations – like emotions, there just aren’t that many). None of this will happen unless the parties of the two different groups are receptive at the time.
Assuming Kim Hunter’s story is true, notice that those same actors who self secluded by color worked in concert to create a film.
The frustration with diversity on this blog saddens my heart, though I must admit that there is truth to the difficulty of fostering trust between groups; in-group favoritism is common because in general, we are more comfortable with what we know. Our amygdala’s respond more radically to faces of out-group members than in-group members – even our hindbrain is not a neutral being.
In my opinion, once a bridge of trust and/or mutual benefit can be formed, there’s no question that groups are better off by cooperating. I understand if others disagree.
LikeLike
Just because there’s in-group favoritism doesn’t mean that a member of the out-group cannot become a part of the in group or that in-groups and out-groups cannot cooperate to reach great ends.
Behaviors aren’t completely black and white. A fact that too often is used to deny that certain behaviors exist. Covering your ears and closing your eyes does not an argument make.
Assuming Kim Hunter’s story is true, notice that those same actors who self secluded by color worked in concert to create a film.
Because luckily none of them were Stone Age immigrants from Somalia. They were Westerners. And they were getting paid to appear in the movie; they wouldn’t gain from not doing so because someone else wore a jacket of a different color. But even when there was no real group differences, the different colors of jackets was enough to make them gravitate toward those who looked the same. A fact that is inconvenient, I know. When such a small thing was enough to make people form cliques, that says something about what much more important group differences can do.
As witnessed by all in real life.
The frustration with diversity on this blog saddens my heart, though I must admit that there is truth to the difficulty of fostering trust between groups
The fact that 90 percent of interracial rape is Blacks (only 12 percent of the population) raping White women saddens my heart. But I know leftists don’t care about that. Hiding that and other facts they don’t care about in order to fight “racism” is what the media owners you listen to prioritize, and since you profit from following those in power, that’s what you think is more important.
LikeLike
Day to day, the girls I have gotten along best with I have mostly been able to grunt at. Until, that is, it was time to mansplain something to them. Then the vocabulary comes out and they know daddy means it.
LikeLike
A hidden part of communication that hardly anyone touches on is tonality. Your vocal infliction is a huge part of attracting girls. Deep voices are attractive to girls because the tonality implied behind a deep voice is that one of dominance. Whenever you order someone around, if you’re use to doing it, you will deepen your voice and include a sharp declarative at the end of your sentence.
This guy covers it in dept:
The only thing I disagree about the video is never using the “rapport seeking” tone. In sales, a “rapport seeking” tone is used to infer micro agreements which are crucial in order for you to get your foot in the door (e.g. the Yes Ladder). A mix of rapport seeking and rapport breaking plus volume, are key to influencing a person to buy or do things for you.
With girls however, I would not recommend it. Seeing as this is how betas talk to them all the time.
Basically, ‘Rapport breaking’ is masculine because it’s a big fuck you to your frame and status.
LikeLike
Inflection?
also timbre.
LikeLike
I’ve always been a “natural” at what I now understand to be *aloof asshole game*.
It’s not working out so well for me..
LikeLike
just got to hang with talkers and liars it helps
LikeLike
I justs thought of something:
When your developing a relationship with a girl is it important to talk about you’re dream/goals and ambitions (such as be a CEO start your own business…blah blah)?
I actually think that might be a bad idea. This is b/c when you do that you are setting a high bar for yourself basically and if you don’t meet it the your girl will see that very negatively….
Whereas if you are really vague about them and just accomplish things out of the blue. I.e. “Oh hey I just got into med school”
Her: whattttt?!?!??
Major attraction spike…
From now on I think I’m just gonna be super vague with my dreams/ambitions and say I’m growing within my job or something
LikeLike
De Niro.
LikeLike
I’m going from 15 pages to 3 pages to 1 page, but I need to get a lot more laconic. It’s one of the hardest things for me.
On the other hand, I’m a really good linguist chameleon who can blend in anywhere. I hadn’t realized this was an official CH-endorsed advantage, so that’s pretty cool.
LikeLike
A lot of the PUAs I’ve seen on video here and at other sites come across as effeminate chatterboxes. They talk on and on and gesture flamboyantly.
It almost makes you wonder whose side they’re on.
Krauser is a notable exception.
LikeLike
watchin cat Williams pimp chronicles
he comes in with 4 bitches
but then actually takes off his own pimp coat and hands it to a bitch lol
my bitch takes off my coat and puts that shit away he he he
wait is that wrong?
LikeLike
de javu god dam im bored
LikeLike
15 round fight in 1915
yea look at that blood
LikeLike
The longest uninterrupted heavyweight championship bout was between James Burke “The Deaf Un” and Simon Byrne, it lasted into the 99th round, went three hours and 16 minutes on May 30th 1833. Byrne took so much punishment he died as a result of the fight. James Burke was exonerated and claimed the heavyweight championship. Irishman Simon Byrne was himself responsible for a ring death a couple years earlier on June 2nd, 1830 by beating Sandy McKay in 47 rounds, and beat a manslaughter charge for that result, so I guess what goes around comes around.
””””””’
yea heavyweight champ of world
99 rounds
LikeLike
In 1845 American Charles Freeman took on Englishman William “The Tipton Slasher” Perry of the heavyweight title in England. The bout went into the 70th round until the referee called a halt to the contest on account of the gathering darkness and ordered the fight to continue the next day. Perry delayed the resumption of the fight for two weeks, but eventually they continued. After 37 more rounds the referee disqualified Perry and declared Freeman champ, but Freeman died a short time later of tuberculosis Oct 18th, so technically that one went 107 and topped the other heavyweight championship fight by 8 rounds.
”””””””’
these dudes were gods
LikeLike
so why are we no longer trying to be gods on earth
LikeLike
imam have that shit printed tomorrow put it on my fucking wall
LikeLike
it was fun I guess being fat out of shape no fucking teeth proving I could make a couple nice lookin bitches fall in love and beat out dudes who looked better than me and had more loot than me and had drugs to give the bitches
almost time to take off my fucking training wheels
and break a million hearts
LikeLike
gonna feel bad when bitches commit suicide and shit but that’s life
I mean me all fucked up lookin this bitch slit her wrists and sent me picks he he he
got to love the game on ultra hard level
LikeLike
I want to be God on this earth yea I said it
LikeLike
gonna start having my chick pray to me
LikeLike
take this shit to the next level
LikeLike
she already sings songs to me with made up words to me so it seems like a logical step
LikeLike
I was at table with friends and I said I own my chicks life I can kill her if I want to
my chick agreed at the table
they were stunned but hey we diferent a little bit
LikeLike
kind of interesting to me to own a life like that
LikeLike
I want to transcend the mundane with this chick
and we do a lot of the time
but have to figure out how to keep it
LikeLike
how do you hold that moment and spread that out to a lifetime
LikeLike
when you tell her you are gonna kill her and you fucking allow her to defend herself and give her the opportunity to kill you first and she doesn’t and allows you to do as you will and every fiber of your being want to murder this chick and you know your fucking mind is almost gone yet you still showed love even in that state in that she could take your ass out and get away with it so she doesn’t kill you and submits totally and allows you to instill the justice she may deserve but then you take compassion on her and let her live
then just kiss and have love in the moment and the moment is good
and nothing else matters
LikeLike
and ya wonder why I have twoitis she still wants my name tatted on her face
LikeLike
people say you cant save a ho
I think I can though
my buddy tells me it can’t be done
I’ve done it once though and nobody else is me
but we are talkin an American ho so yea might be diferent story
but people said American chick wouldn’t treat me like a god and she has
LikeLike
Perfect example is Karl Urban in Judge Dredd (2012). Masculine, powerful, laconic, dangerous, brave.
LikeLike
One thing I haven’t seen posted or mentioned here too much, is the simple act of looking a woman in the eyes.
I look at EVERY woman I see directly in the eyes. It seems to create discomfort. They look down, they look sideways, they fumble for their phone, play around with the crap in their purse. But never do they meet my gaze for more than 2 or 3 seconds.
Alpha women have no problem staring a man down, and it’s quite invigorating when they meet my gaze and hold it. I never look away, and if we’re talking about anything at all, the words don’t seem to matter, because of the eye-play game we’re playing.
I’m not sure if the direct eye-contact is a visceral move. Maybe women feel that when a man looks them in the eye without looking away, maybe these women think that “this man knows something about me”, or “maybe he sees something I’m trying to hide”.
New red-piller, and first time poster here. Thank you for the continuing education of the ethos that IS woman.
LikeLike
why do they call the police so much?
LikeLike
Because they like men with guns….
LikeLike
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/how-to-make-a-girl-catatonic/
LikeLike
This scientific study is flawed as usual.
They probably watched how men and their poor conversational skills bombed many times and then compared them to the men of the same eloquence who talked lot less and noticed that women responded better to the latter ones. No wonder those silent types got further with their advances. They had less chances to fuck it up.
Being eloquent is great tool in game arsenal IMO. It’s just that there is a time and place for everyting
LikeLike
hey remember that one time science said men and womens brains are different?
womens brains are wired more for verbal acuity – they talk talk talk… with their girlfriends.
mens brains are wired more for reason logic analytical problem solving… thinking… not idle chatter.
the chatty gabby guy probably has a brain that developed more like a females brain and comes across as one of the girlfriends.
LikeLike
roosh says that women prefer chatty men
LikeLike
[…] ��Science�� has once again dropped to its knees and slobbered the knob of CH, vindicating the Heartistian observation that women love laconic men. […]
LikeLike
[…] For this post, I’ll just link to another good post: Study: Women Prefer Men Of Few Words. […]
LikeLike