You can imprint that feeling only for so long when of no substance.
Not really. The feeling itself is the substance. That should be clear and understood here.
When I say substance I figuratively refer to solid/ non abstract substance. And women get vibes off of that. Both somatic and abstract substance go hand in hand. I'm basically just saying that if there's no somatic substance, even verbal skills are somatic because the conception of skills is referential of outward phenomena. Both somatic substance and intellectual substance are their own subcategories. Feeling substance is something they abstract.
For example, a PUA artist is jiving right and talking a pretty good game. It's his motions, his body, his words, they create the intellectual signal of judgment which produce the feeling. But neither can be made without the somatic substance first. Intellectual is the reactionary process and Emotion is reactionary effect that seethes into the psyche. Both intellectual/ feeling processes of logic are pre-ordained and this is essentially what primality is. You wouldn't get what you want from the girls unless you have the somatic substance to produce it.
Not really. If they have a normal functioning female brain, then they are going to be affected by a persons behavior, because their brain is wired to be.
I don't disagree but it's a question of emphasis. Human beings have angles of emphasis. You ceded to something that already refutes your view. You said that women have highly functional brains, yes. You can produce a lot of hormonomomentum to warp their minds, but it comes in sets. Being just a swagmaster where again a team of football players are around you isn't gonna work in the club. Even PUAers need to dodge vast chadnergy. (chad energy). Infields are pretty much all staged and singled out. In an environment like I just spoke of you can't be a hormonohook when women are seeing all the surrounding primarchs that exceed you around you. You can't really believe that this is an end all be all isolated factor. I think you might just be using your examples of it working where you THOUGHT that it was just swaggy laxy fratty behavior that got the girls. Make an 80 year old or a dumpy hobo who smells like shit do it and clearly you'll see different results.
Social vibe and impressions are of value though. So is the feeling they get from it.
Something I call primality pyramid pertinence. Where women get greater feelings form higher value people. Women are innately hypergamous/ regalgamous because people with that kind of value mirror hte kind of person they want to be. THey're more attracted to people with traits how exhibit more of the traits they want in themselves. Quality collecting essentially. Women end up doing this in their end game more than resigning to someone with beta bucks. If they're very systematic, which many are.
Women are both hormonal and systematically efficient. It's just that one doesn't really come without the other a lot of the time. Not as much as the PUAs think. Though I won't doubt that women are hormonal without being systematic in many places in their life. But almost none of them are systematic without being hormonal. STEM sluts are weird and even they are only where they are because they couldn't get their more narcissistic sorority narcissistic pleasures met.
But the common pattern with all people's primality is that nature wants us to be full of looks, money, status, competence, achievement, glamor, prominence, prowess, power, etc. All of the things that give into our narcissistic nature. And yes, even in the most drunken/ dulled up hazes in the party/club women will prioritize having a good time. But hedonistically/ naturall it's the personality pattern of all people to derive fun/ love by being relational to other people.
People mostly just want to feel good. Including you.
Tell that to a psychopath or a pedophile, and then my points will begin to make sense to you. People are pursuing some measure of gratification that's defined by what kind of person they are. Again you seem like you're trying to just put a fratty laxy swaggy slant on the situation by giving a platitude instead of a thorough realistic analysis of the situation. Conventional Wisdom. A colloquial clarification, not a formal or reasonable one. This is the normie mentality at hand. The kind that doesn't believe in the deep dissection of things. I see this probably impacting your thought process if this is truly you intending to be analytical.
Why would you even want all that stuff in the first place?
Probably because of how it feels.
Although I actually disagree that this is all that it is.
Arguably there is a certainly hollowness to just that lone, like something is missing.
And by the way I am not the only person to recognize this, it has long been established to be true.
Humans have developed alot of different ways of thinking and attempting to achieve these things.
What you describe is just one of them.
They would rather live in a cloud of pleasure and feeling of value
But at the expense of prolonguing instant gratification for the sake of putting their altar down to serve the altar that helps stabilize and thrive society? They're too individualistic for that shit. They're not really convictious at all. Again, every idea/ intangibility is something they don't have the evolutionary attention span for. It's like giving a ghettocel guy in the bronx or oakland to read shakespeare. They just perceive it as this niche nerdy uninteresting triviality to have any culture aside from having the competitive cutting edge in social spheres.
Although some people would say that pure pleasure alone is not actually the best human experience or existence.
Women have an evolutionary incentive to be short with anything that doesn't give them gratification as the evolutionary mechanism for preserverence of humanity. Nature knows what incel goes through. Coldness/ Stoneness/ Aloofness.
That "false" experience is as objective as it actually gets. How is it not?
It doesn't matter because your criteria of it mattering is another subjective standard/ arbitrarian. Which we both are. But you're pillaring your arbitrarian emphasis around it mattering in accordance with how it translates to the swayance of women. I'm pillaring this a bit more on what women are in actuality. And I will caveat the position instead of letting it go without saying that this is what they do or don't care about. Because I'm primarily pillaring my engagements on women when I don't provide context and the biological basis of their nature.
I have to wonder if you are actually being serious when you say things like "fratdaddy".
I address the topic with terms equal to its level of seriousness. Think of onomonpeia terms concerning bamboozle/ duped/ etc. The articulation was parallel to the sounds we arbitrarily gain from certain phenomena.
No. But lets be real here, that is a strange way for someone to speak. You are probably the only person I have ever heard speak like this. I am not even insulting you just saying that I find it funny.
It is because we're having radically deep discussions with words like that popping up in there. I think it's more true to the nature of the topics we have at hand. Adds a more contextual flare.
Social skills and vibe are not necessarily the same thing as PUA. That is to say that their teaching and interpretation of it is just often stupid and ineffective.
What benefit with the pattern of what you see women value does having someone who has high - social - skills really do?
It does all sorts of things. How do you even think life works? Alot of it is social skills. It's how people feel about you, what kind of relationship they have with you, and all the benefits you gain from that.
Unfortunately so many of it isn't even dependent on how you act. If a 20 year old and a 40 year old were acting the same way and wearing the samae clothes towards a girl there is a little bit of an emotional disparity isn't there? Yes. And no matter how swaggy you wanna do it, it'll still underlyingly reside and cascade into the conscience in a manner which impacts her behavior. Nearly nothing in behavioral fratty laxy swag can exist independent from the context of the person who is saying it. It's not independent in of itself.
"Primality" is arguably socially designed and wired in the first place. Even looks is a social thing to some extent because it's a way for humans to interact with each other and regulate their behavior, which is not done in isolation but socially.
Dur. It's not arguable, it's certain. Primality comprises inexorable basic human functions also. Basic sentient functions. Even the microexaminations of picking someone who doesn't have a disagreeable smell is a primality function, but it's also evolutionarily rational.
Are you so ignorant of the biological basis of women?
Are you of the human social brain?
Social brain is a byproduct.
Again, it's not a universal essential factor to have social skills. Being a fat potato without a dull personality but the fun and swag of louis C.K. and Eminem can get you far. But again, everything considered, there's so many other catches to the puzzle peice to bring on the stream of gravy that women will perceive for fair compensation I.E. sex.
I have never said that looks weren't huge either.
Of course a really good looking guy can do pretty well off that as well.
Although I do think you underestimate that it matters even for good looking guys.
Let me clarify this for you. It matters intensely. If you put up a chad dummy in the middle of the girl with all of the right starting off factors you it will be a very concrete influence if he can't talk, function, act properly.
Girls who are desperate on the primality pyramid will want chad if his Primality capital is a rarity that they want more than budging out of the detriments that come with the person. Often though any flaw has a girl looking elsewhere becuase girls can be rest assured that in this age where quality women 6+ are a commodity from God because of selection pool constraints/ 1st world liberty constraints... then they'll receive much more attention from guys than guys to a girl unless the guy is a rarity. Female attraction is relational. The guy has to be superior in relation to other men. Female attraction to men is a fickle resonance. It's also that way for guys, but far much so for women. As female attraction is predicated on dominance which are moving factors. Guys will be satisfied with a good looking girl especially when receiving one is a luxury of luck and probably lightning won't hit twice at once. A man is usually only Stably if you're stably dominant/ high primality prospected...
Using swag still makes you walking on eggshells to some extent, or some kind of rickety substance. For again it's only one piece of the puzzle.
In our age of high social interractionality/ constant feed of all of the attractive people on earth being available at the swipe of a phone/ click of a mouse you will NEED to show you are distinctly of prospect in relation to all of them.
This is definitely rare and I'd say that personality matters almost just as much as looks at this point even if you are good looking. But when I say it's more important I'm saying in relation to the scale of meeting the criteria of even being available/ of potential in the first place.
It will be just as essential for you to have good personality. But when I say it's important, I'd say it's far more of a difficult/ trippy/ slippery line of factors to have good looks, genes, etc. which a lot of girls will require to even initiate interaction with you, but from thence on you will need personality.
Personality is like the people who work at the front desk of a good restaurant. Sometimes on occasion people will come to fraternize and enjoy the atmosphere the people who work there. And maybe that can be the whole reason. But the reason most go/ initiate is because of the food. No food/ no somatic substance... welp, sorry people who were there, we like you but the detriment of being without food isn't worth missing out on even with the benefit of you all being there. (On occasion) some people will get the number of a few of the people who worked there and just have nice coffee dates. but the ratio of that happening is about the same ratio of women who will choose a guy based sheerly on his inner character.
HOWEVER, sometimes it can be hard for restaurants to get quality chauffeurs, waiters, etc. but it's usually the hardest qualities/ traits/ etc. to attain that are the most difficult. The fact that something is in of itself is possessed holds exceptional novelty for women because it is so uncommon and a symbol of high status. It's rare for people to have elephantiasis but does that mean it's valuable? no. Having blue eyes is, which less than 10% of the world has and is an aesthetic plus in almost ALL cases. It holds the mantle of refinement and striking grace.
Female attraction is predicated around eliteness which means having everything there is and ideally people want of have this as well in their self-discernment to get the "feeling" of success, happiness, significance, power, etc. To be in the position where eveyrthing is taken care of and there's no foreseeable future event on their horizon which can stop them. Where primality gives you primacy.
I've seen plenty of even good looking slayers and they all struggled with shit that other guys too. Maybe that made it easier but it wasn't like it wasn't there.
I'm not disagreeing. The hormonal flow has different highs and lows. I'm honestly glad you're here to help me put these things into my mind. Hormonomonotions are haphazard and has it that certain mood swings/ stimulus created different hungers. The hormonohungers are dependent on haphazard hurdles of the mind, body, soul, etc. The hormonoclivity of women is primal. Yes. The hormonopreference is haphazard and fickle. It follows the person in power, who has the resonances that make them feel whole. And in the information age, women don't have to be considerate of others. They can go for what they want and fear generally no reprisal in this high headway for the oppressed society.
Just max all your shit, no need to argue all day about what's ideal. Start doing what works, and in your personal situation.[/quote]You seem to take a lot of nuance to a lot of stuff but you also seem to be disjointed in that you pillar your idea of what's valuable about what gives you not so much insight as just success. Yet the things you talk of, while valuable to my own reflections, don't seem to be the best approach in achieving your success that you hold up as the ideal for genuine rumination.
Again there are grains of truth in PSL, but it doesn't fully encompass eveyrthing. But it's a better more realistic platform than most I've seen, especially PUA at getting to the biological basis of mankind's darkness.
They wanna reflect the esteem system of the person they ideally want to be
I don't think that it's always the case and I know you like to say "I know it's not conscious but this is still what's underlying" but I don't think it's that either.
Sometimes they just are having fun, not everything is related to that.
I do plenty of things I enjoy that don't have anything to do with "primality" but I still like them. I'm sure you do.
We are what we love. Someone can pillar their loves/ passions around what htey find ideal about htemsef if they're highly narcissitic and need eveyrthing to be a titillating accessory for their image. I think half of the time it comes from desiring something and having the traits they're innately born with. But then they like to dress up their identity the added aspects. We have this innate proclivity for our species to conform dude. We don't like being the people who are tolerated/ given footing in society including out of pity prize/ mercy/ etc. We want to be the ones who have the social footing befitted/ given to those who are favored.
I'm not talking about primality. We have the impulse to be primal. That's our line of logic we proceed by. But our interests are somewhat reminiscent of primality. Men like things of high masculinity in most cases because it reflects what our ideal identity is. Same with women and makeup/ gracile forests/ trees. Everything we like is an extension of the ego that we want it to be wit very little exception. You don't see many niggas in the hood lining up after a perfume store do you? Or women running over to a rap concert talking about drugs and hoes.
You regard having fun. yes. When they develop the standards of being elite, then that's a different story. But why don't you think it's subconscious? Dude as I said, the primality mentality is what we derive fun by which is innately interrelational and we try to attain our contextualization of ourselves in relation to other people. With us usually being the superior How many damn times do I have to say this. lol
Well yes, sometimes women do have fun, but again there are subconscious processes of elitism they derive fun by. Is every girl doing things on behalf of hierarchy? no. But those things are still a part of it being there. Yes fun is what they wanna have. But the higher degree of elitism is still ever present and turns up more concentrated when you include more people into the sampling pool.
It's a basic human function for us to want to be elitist. Do some wanna have fun? Yes. Do some dogs wanna be pet? yes, some dogs have the impulse to want to have fun with their owners but not without the back of the brain sense of impression that people have about being properly contextualized. I guarantee dude that women don't just care about their own primal capital because they wanna be included and have fun with it. The fun is innately relational.
Honestly dude, imagine that that same girl is in the middle of the bar, but she's ugly. She's gonna have self esteem problems. If it were ONLY about just chilling/ having fun/ no primal relation or feeling evolutionarily impressive whatsoever then IT WOULD NOT BE EVEN RELEVANT.
The evolutionary factors in general matter but sometimes they really are just having fun, in ways that are not fully explained in terms of "evolution".
Just having fun is what I call pleasure by primalstriding. They're essentially showing they're goods and being underlyingly relational in front of other peopel. WOMEN CAN'T have fun unless they're of value in this way dude ugh shouldn't this be self explanatory? Why even put on makeup or be self conscious as almost ALL women are if the objective is to just enjoy themselves? This is where you're putting another colloquial platitude above the logistics of this. It would be stressful and tiring to go through this to have fun, and not a feeling of conquest and achievement. Women base the fun on primalconquest satisfaction momentum. Then they begin to have fun. Women need fun and thrill because htey have a low negagement span concerning anything deviating form the incentives of their soulzone. Yes women wanna have fun but it's exclusive to a few and hormonally haphazard. You gotta learn to pick of the slackings that their slant will see. The hormonal rush won't last FOREVER. And the fun factor will dissipate. Fun is just female indulgence, and what do females indulge in?
There's no mystery factor here of what women want that somehow is latent in their individual peculiarities. At least one that deviates from the rule of their primality wanting this kind of value capital.
In fact even thinking about it like this, makes it less enjoyable.
Irrelevant but exactly. Which is why you can't get women to course correct from who they are. They pillar enjoyment over ideals.
Even ugly women do this without understanding that their primal capital is highly predicated on looks, but still want to come off like they're 1st class people/ primal tyrannizers. Espeically when they can't change their looks and just will try to milk the istuation as best they can. Evne though they aren't able to withstand (in judgment) the same amount of criticism they're dishing out to others they still feel like they can give improportionate amounts of criticism to a man because they have got it easier. That women have the right away and can act rash with their selection... because of affirmative action for women and male roles.
I don't really think this is actually just inherent with them, I think it's largely the result of social engineering the current situation we are in, of which men are mostly to blame to begin with.
This is really just men acting like a bitch basically, in mass numbers.
People are shown what they really are when they have the affluence to not follow anything for survival, but the affluence/ space to choose who they want to be.
Women take a lot under horomonal consideration but essentially it's a male role to be a provider, dominator (to herself and others), prize, exception (in ways that she'll cumulatively examine as the relationship progresses). You can't really project this by being just a swagster and playing the chillaxer game all the time. You can but you still need substance behind it. It's foolish to believe that eveyrhting is ltaent and beneath a system.
You can be cool and also make moves and be dominant. I'm not sure I actually see the contradiction.
I'm saying that all coolness has to tie in with dominance. And not result in being try hard and embarassingly contrived. It needs to fit with the alpha arrangement and not be a beta bolsterment.
All the best swagsters I met were tall/ big/ strong had primal capital embedded in their body/ their connotation of ability.
Personally I've known at least a handful of guys who had none of these things and still killed it.
I'd ask how but your next response won't clarify because your probably couldn't explain it.
Again, a handful. The whole point of them I think you're getting at is because it's not logical not even they know how to do it. They probably hit the hormonal hunger spot. It's about juggling their engagement span on you by quenching their hormonal hunger hubs. Then you will gain primal pleasure momentum to the point of them developing a fondness for you.
You gotta remember there are selective stipulations to any girl. Very elitist girls want to have fun with the best. Even being a swagmaster is essentially a crucial aspect of the primarchy that they pendulum favor with a suitor with. A swagmaster shows curtness, inner game value, etc. A girl probably isn't consciously thinking of anything, you're right. But what subconsciously slakes their thirst for fun/ thrill is what they do want and there is a consistent science behind it that DOES have to do with primality. You NEED to do something dominarchical in the swagarchy which is essentially showing your value through swagness.
Again women wouldn't let every guy hit it. Women in clubs have seen it all. You can gain primal momentum through other mediums which, although can't fully subvert materialistic primality, can still hit their hormonal high of happiness/ fun they hunger for. If a girl is at a bar they're looking for sex and instant gratification. Elitists can't be swaggerswayed so easily.
Fun they can have, reserve, and arrange for their own personal pleasure in dominating and controlling others. To be honest with you. I know you're trying to contextualize what you're seeing. But swagging is a thrillride value that eventually burns out in accordance with logistics that must also be calculated. Essentially having to do again with not so much primality. Although that does matter. But essentially a thrillarch.
Swagarch is someone who prevails in the art of creating thrills.
Thrillarch is the hierarchy of someone who women subconsciously see as thrilling and thus under that kind of stimulus will join.
Primarchy is essentially the primal instinct for women to seek thrills in the first place. The evolutionary incentive/ and usually what is thrilling.
Dominarchy is a component of the primarchy which thrillarchy and swagarchy can be tied to. A dominant demanor is thrilling hence why bikers, rockstars/ musicians etc. work out so well in attraction. As opposed to someone who works I.T.
And a tenderarchy, which shows love, compassion, grace, and this make you look easy/ conquest/ betacard for most people. And a creepy weirdo in white knighting/ orbiting with tendertactics.
Main trees of Femipsyche.
Contrasting with Andropsyche (male psychology)