Quote:
Enough with the analysis of my behaviour guys, come on. I'm on here trying to make a point and all you guys are trying to do is play therapist. I don't need, nor do I care about your psychoanalysis of my motives/actions/behaviour/etc etc. What I do need however is for every prospective and current "PuA" to understand that while you may be talented in your own right, Natural Game trumps all. I don't care if you've fucked Carmen Electra doggystyle on a balcony overlooking the Champs-Élysées, I don't care if you've taken my mom out for a nice seafood dinner and never called her again, no matter what, Natural Game trumps all.
Now most of you have taken this as insulting/berating/demeaning/etc, but like I said before, this is not meant to do that. This is meant to demonstrate the power that is Natural Game. I'm proud of being who I am, I don't need to hide my insecurities by pumping myself up to be a fucking asshole. I am only here trying to demonstrate that while your material may be the shit, natural game is ten times nastier.
Keep on hating if you want, but if you do you're completely missing my point.
G
Ok I'll bite.
Here's my problem with your position. When we say "naturals are always better than POOAHS". How are we defining "naturals"?
Here are a couple of my attempts at defining the word along with the definition I think you might be implying.
----------------
DEFINITION 1: Guys who don't study Pick up but go out to pull:
Hanging with normal guys when on the pull is quite boring, it's sitting around waiting for a girl, then saddling up close to the girl and making some light, friendly conversation. Most guys version of game is sitting around hoping that chance and pleasant conversation will get their dick wet. Doesn't take much to out game those guys.
This can't be what you mean!
Okay, let's try a better definition.
Maybe natural game is "beyond" average...
DEFINTION 2: Guys who have a natural talent for picking up women:
Again, I've gone on the pull alongside people with no interest in PU who were great seducers. They were friendly, confident and socially aware, they knew how to push a girls buttons and take her home. Textbook pulling but nothing special, these guys have a vague idea what they are doing but they are little un-refined at times.
I've outgamed these people. Though I will say that they are genuinly "good" and much more fun to chill with than the guys in Definition 1!
Right! Maybe it's not just a guy who's good with women, maybe a natural is someone who is inexplicably unbeatable by anyone who has ever visited a pick up site.
I've yet to meet anyone like this.... though in saying that I've not been on this planet as long as some.
But I think we have a problem with this defintion of "natural".
In this third case, the only way we can define a natural player is someone who is better than all people who learned to be players.
So ofcourse we can't beat your version of a natural! In your definition being a natural entails the predicate of being "better than all learned people".
But, then we're faced with loads of existential questions of "who are these people?" "What made them that way?" "How many of these people exist and how frequently do they appear in society?" "What seperates them from other guys who have naturally good game.. just not good enough?"
You're concept of natural just isn't making any sense to me, I find it to be too vague and the claims about this kind of "natural" have been made unfalsifiable due to the fact that your definition has been created to fit your argument.
Seems like a twisted no true scotsman fallacy to me...
Care to chime in?