mASF post by "NewToTheGame"
posted on: mASF forum: Field Reports Discussion, February 2, 2002finalD,
I think your point is radically consistent and true.
I will start changing my attitude/behavior towards your recommendations.
Big thankyou.
<finalD> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> NewToTheGame wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > All comments/ critics are warmly welcomed.
> >
>
> You're crashing and burning. The "burning" part ain't so bad, is it?
>
> :)
>
> You're out there, trying, and that much is so very important. I have a
> suggestion that might get things going more positively for you in the
> future. Work on managing your internal states. Really really get a handle
> on how to be "in PUA mode" BEFORE you start sarging. It's a tough thing to
> do, to get all worked up about how you're going to act and what you feel
> like before you even go out, but then not let yourself feel that you're
all
> worked up. So state-management is a very difficult skill, and one that can
> easily lead you astray into realms of navel-gazing. But if you avoid that
> pitfall, you will find that women respond more positively to you, probably
> because of a billion subtle cues that you are (or are not) sending, all
> based on your state. They have some "attitude," these women, that they
will
> hold out for a "perfectomundo," (despite their own zits and cellulite, but
> that's a different issue), so you have to have some ploy that will
> circumvent this resistance. The ploy is, that your own state-management
> will SURPRISE and ZOWIE them into submission.
>
> Work on it. I'll bet it will work for you. You mention, for example,
> hanging with a bi-polar AFC/PUA. That's the hallmark of bad state-
> management ... radially changing behavior of any sort. Likewise, you
> mention that you've "absorbed" some of his AFCness off of him. Well,
that's
> your act of allowing external circumstance to modify your internal states.
> Get a better handle on it. Make your states independent, self-determined.
>
> Just a suggestion. It's what I'm working on right now, so maybe I hit it a
> bit too hard. But it seems to me, that you can't see the forest (state
> management is weak) for the trees (minor specifics, like not disagreeing,
> or not having something to say, or having an AFC friend, etc. etc.).
>
|
