Posted in Theory

Krasuer had a cool talk about daygame with the Street Attraction guys recently. And in this talk he goes off briefly about how game produces better knowledge of “the human courtship ritual” than any other source. Very interesting topic.

Here is how he kicks off that point:

“To me, the daygame that we do is the best social science in the world right now.”

— Krauser, from the Street Attraction interview

That is a bold claim. And I agree.

I won’t over-emphasize the “daygame” part of Nick’s comment. Men of game in general can likely own the claim Krauser is making. The general public won’t understand the level of experience Krauser has when he makes a point like that, but he is correct.

“If you think of it as ‘game as social science,’ we are the modern social scientists.”

— Krauser

As we work to “find/meet/attract/close” women, we run more experiments, more “real life” experiments, with “intimate consequences,” than anyone else. And that makes our “first hand” experience more valid, more “in-tune” with verifiable truth than someone in an academic setting.

It’s a bit self-congratulatory, but the point is correct. And recognizing this POV, might help us see our “experiments” in a different light.

Of course running around on the street doesn’t mean you’ll get laid or that you’ll command any insight. However, even if you are a novice, you’ll quickly gain a much better-than-average read of social cues by approaching women. And when you start consistently getting laid from this kind of “studying,” now you have demonstrated proof of something… and you have more credibility than most academics on these topics.

Is daygame easy? Is it easy to get girls to stop, to give you their contacts, and then respond, and then date you, and then spread their thighs in wonton relish?

I would argue daygame is not easy. I would argue it is quite difficult. Even though it is not easy (or obvious), we know men can learn this in predictable ways. I did. And daygame is a subset of our larger School of Game… where the lessons go on and on in every direction. Nobody knows more about mating and dating patterns in humans than we do.

Game is not easy… but it is something we can practice. And each practice session is another test of ourselves and of our theories. And a chance to notice and collect some data to help us begin to know the social world.

“To understand the social world, you’ve got to get reliable and valid data. Most social science is just giving questionnaires to a bunch of graduates students in a university. You’re not going to get valid or reliable data that way.”

“What we do as daygamers, we go out and we do thousands of sets. Every set, we’ve got skin in the game, we want to get laid. The girl has skin in the game… a risk of letting herself get fucked. Both sides have skin in the game. You’re getting very valid information about the human courtship ritual.”

— Krauser

“Skin in the game.” That’s the key, right there. That is what makes us unique social scientists. We’re not keyboard jockeys theoretical. It’s real-time theory-testing with both immediate and long-term feedback.

Here is a perfect example of what Krauser is talking about in terms of how the mainstream world tries (and fails) to understand sexuality:

“The researchers presented their participants with videotaped and written scenarios depicting two men interacting with each other. The scenarios varied on whether the male acted ‘dominant’ or ‘nondominant.'”

— Scott Barry Kaufman, pointing to a 1987 study of “dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females“

See that. They are trying to “study” attractiveness. And they aren’t out in the field.

That study used video footage of non-sexual interactions (not infields) and written descriptions of those scenes. They presented that fluff to “46 women and 42 men enrolled in an introductory psychology course.” That means the “judges of reality” here are college kids (many of them in their freshman year). From that “hard hitting science” they came up with “findings” that Scott thinks actually mean something.

That study is not unusual in its methods. When you see examples like this, about how academics “study sex”… Krauser’s claim seems more and more like a simple fact.

Men of game have real data. Data on our own behavior, as measured against women’s actual responses (and feedback from our wings). And we have data from the behavior of those women, captured live and on the spot, as we “twist and turn” their nipples dials to see what happens.

If you’re getting started, and haven’t claimed much flesh from daygame yet, you need more “data,” as Krauser says. Even so, it’s easy to see how you’re already miles ahead of the dry, disconnected “paper experiments” that drive conclusions in most of the scientific literature. You are both literally and figuratively closer. You are face to face with real, live girls.

It’s a beautiful thing.

“In a follow up study, the researchers isolated various adjectives to pinpoint which descriptors were actually considered sexually attractive.”

“Actually.”

This ^ time Scott is pointing to a difference study, one that claims to answer the question: “Do Women Prefer Dominant Men?” They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and just asked Yohami.

In this piece of “academic excellence,” “One hundred and eighteen undergraduate females participated” in a study (for course credit) and “were asked to provide an evaluation of the man in the description.”

We know one of the basic tenets of game is “watch what she does, not what she says.” This kind of study is only about “what she says” and produces what Krauser would call “unreliable data.”

From all this, Scott wants us to be sure to note:

“In short, a simple dominant-nondominant dimension may be of limited value when predicting mate preferences for women.”

— Scott

What we know about dominance is of tremendous value. Full stop.

It’s not the only thing to know about game, that is true, but Scott’s line is a flat-footed conclusion. Of course it’s more than alpha/beta. But this kind of study can’t compare with how Men of Game tease out a successful read of a woman or a sexual exchange.

The title of Scott’s post is “The Myth of the Alpha Male.” Let’s not get into our version of that debate now. The point is, no matter what we Men of Game think of that argument… we come to our conclusions from a level of research that completely out-works and out-classes Scott and his “sources.” And we do so, because of the reasons Krauser is highlighting in his recent talk…

We talk to girls. Lots of them. We more than talk… we put ourselves and these girls in situations where the truth bubbles to the surface. We turn up the heat… and the bullshit boils away.

Here is more from Scott:

“In terms of the nondominant adjectives, the big winners were easygoing… and sensitive.”

See guys? You “need to be more sensitive.” This is what “comfort” “attraction” is really all about.

LOL.

This is worse than a bad study, or methods that generate unreliable data. This is about completely “sexually uneducated” folks (with “PhDs in cognitive psychology from Yale University“) actually emphasizing the wrong core principles. It’s bad research. With flawed methods. Generating sexually-lame conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.

“This analysis was revealing…”

— Scott

No. It’s the opposite of revealing. It’s obscures the truth.

These studies are examples of beta researchers pushing false-insight based on bad data. Many in the mainstream crowd would love to hear that dominance and aggression and alpha traits aren’t worth the work they take to acquire. That “game doesn’t work.” How many times have we heard that from guys with no experience? These researchers are pandering. And they are 100 miles away from the realities of the sexual jungle.

Some of the power of the kind of true social science that Krauser is talking about is this: You don’t have to take my word for it. And certainly don’t take Scott’s. Hit the street, and run your own experiments. Krauser and the London lads have laid out a recommended path, but you are free to try anything you want. You’d be a fool to start from scratch… but you can.

Go talk to girls. That is where the rubber hits the road.

“The researchers then asked women to indicate which of the adjectives used to describe John were ideal for a date as well as for a long-term romantic partner.”

— Scott

This ^ is an example of “self-reported” data. We know self-reported data is not quality data. Sometimes that is true because the subjects aren’t honest (they say what they think the interviewer wants to hear). In this case that kind of data sucks because the subjects responses aren’t nearly as accurate as they would be if you put them in a sexual situation, instead of asking them about a situation. It’s not “reliable and valid” as Krauser would say.

We don’t ASK girls if they like us… we test for compliance to find out. Compliance tests… maybe we should call them “compliance experiments.”

There is a huge difference between what a girl might “say” she’ll do, and what she actually does, when things heat up. The heat of real life makes their actions more “honest.” Honest signals. If she is fucking you… she is fucking you. You may not be completely right about why… but you are so much closer than “ivory tower” knowledge can ever be. You’re skin to skin with the truth.

In a related way… I don’t do much in the way of “post sex” interviews anymore (that is “self reported” data, and it’s unreliable). In the last year, those kinds of “interviews” seem like a waste of time to me. Again, what she says is miles away from the truth of what she does. Even at the level of the sheets on our bed, we test girls and our theories… by moving them through the model, not by asking them questions. Her “self-reported” data is not nearly as valid as our own observations of the conditions under which she is willing to spread her legs.

Here is more from the Street Attraction talk:

“We are directly experiencing it. Nobody is telling us about it… we’re seeing it though our own eyes.”

“What we do is an amazing data collection exercise. The sample size is thousands upon thousands of very valid interactions. Then we’re seeing downstream… which ones come on dates? Which girls will put out?”

— Krauser

I’ll echo one of my personal points of emphasis here, and say this ^ is about volume.

You have to talk to a lot of girls if you want any sense of mastery here… in the same way that proper scientific studies have large sample sizes. The fact that we run thousands of sets (I think I am getting close to 4000 street approaches) means we have a LOT of data. Compare that to surveying “100 freshman college girls.” I can talk to 100 girls in a week. And that would make me an “expert” on exactly nothing.

We know volume of experiments here is essential. Not only are you more likely to find an “interested and available” girl in a “bigger study,” but you are also more likely to learn. And the truth is, the % of girls you approach that turn in sticky delicious sex will always be low… less than 10%, that is certain. Closer to 1% for me. So most approaches are in fact, about learning. About calibration. About data collection… about ourselves and the girls. About becoming an expert.

“What we have to say… is superior to every social science department in the world, because of the high quality valid and reliable data… and how we’re organizing it… in this huge crowdsourcing operation, that we call the seduction community, which generates new hypothesis and then tests them.”

— Krauser

Actually fucking girls both tests and validates our theories. It is proof we are onto something real. And that our knowledge is applicable.

And when Krauser talks about our community (Game, and the larger Manosphere), now we are trading secrets and collaborating. And while there is no substitute for your own time on the sidewalk, the shared knowledge is a UUUGGE resource for all of us. I constantly reference “the studies of other men.” And I add my own “case studies” here as my own contribution to the field.

We keep the invalid reporting in our community down to a minimum as we rip each other’s FRs to shreds in the comments of forums and blogs. And all of the online bickering we do about game… is our form of “peer review.”

I wrote this in the comment section for that video on youtube:

“When I first started studying [game], I used to think the FBI (or something) must have some materials that would help us ‘unlock’ human interactions that I could use to get better with girls… some “secrets” I could use.

“Guys like Paul Ekman have some very special things to teach, but… a few years later… I know WE ARE THE BEST SOURCE of this information. There are secrets, and we know them… we can feel them in our bones, in set.

“Nobody spends as much time, in human interactions, nearly every day, with ‘skin the game,’ at the critical level, … as we do as men of game.”

— Nash

It’s true.

I don’t think (anymore) that there is a substantial body of men in the military or government or anywhere else, that knows more about this than we do. That would mean they spend as much time on this as we do… and nobody is accusing us of not spending enough time on girls. We are developing, and sharing, a rare skill set here.

“What we are keying into is the human courtship ritual that is in our DNA, but which for evolutionary reasons is somewhat disguised from us. We are trying to lift the veil on that.”

“We are the people that can teach the social scientists about dating. We’re on the frontlines.”

— Krauser

I wrote a piece on a similar topic over a year ago. I remembered the post, but I didn’t remember that that too was inspired by Krauser. I transcribed this next quote from his theory-based lecture series, The Womanizers Bible:

“Especially if you’re doing daygame, cold approach generally, but especially daygame, is one of our really big, strong signs of sexual market value is our extreme calibration, our extreme social knowledge.

Because we’re literally having thousands of interactions with women. We’re going thru the stages of the courtship ritual — certainly the beginnings of it, before we get blown out — thousands of times. Thousands of thousands of times. Way more than a normal man ever would. Way more than the girl ever will.

That will generally engender experience. And that experience leads to extreme social savvy and calibration, which is, in itself, very, very attractive.”

— Krauser

Krauser has a perfect and inspiring read on all this.

All this experimentation and “extreme social savvy” goes beyond the streets… and continues through each stage of the model… including the bedroom.

I have been all over the concept of LMR lately. I wrote about it in my Janka/LMR piece. And then more so in my most recent daygame lay report from this trip in Japan. I’m very interested in how “resistance” works in women, and how to avoid it altogether and focus on arousal instead.

On this trip so far, I’ve had four girls in my apartment and three in my bed. I fucked the one. The other two were great makeouts where I played with each girls willingness to have sex. I played with her turn-on, and did my best to encourage it (and in other ways build connection with those girls). I was curious and tested what might make her aroused enough that she would lean forward into my advances. Both were awesome and delicious experiences. Both were precious experiments where I collected rare data in a first-hand way.

Those girls knew they were very close to getting fucked. Women love sex, but there are many good reasons why a girl won’t pounce on any cock that can pry her pants off. Biological and social consequences are strong incentives for a girl to give you very real feedback when you physically make a move on her womb. More “honest signals.” So any experiments I run in my lab bed should generate reference experiences (data) that I know I can trust… even if I can’t perfectly interpret what that data means in every instance (that too, will come with more experiments/experience).

The data I gather is about girls. And about “mating rituals.” But it is also about myself. I’m fascinated. I love it.

What a hot game.

More girls. More data. More salacious wenching. And more feedback to make me even better in future iterations of the “sexual research” we call daygame.

We are social scientists.

Much respect to Krauser.

Viva daygame.