Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:08 am 
Offline
Member of MPUA Forum

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:10 pm
Posts: 199
Quote:
So now you get to prove that learning a skill lets you affect your own testosterone levels. Good luck with that. Testosterone is a hormone pumped into your system mostly based on age... you have no conscious control over it, and learning game isn't going to increase your testosterone. You might learn to do things women like, and ovulating women might find that more appealing... but it has nothing to do with your testosterone. In fact, if your testosterone surged and it DID affect the woman's behavior it probably wouldn't matter if you were "nice" or "bad."
Actually you are wrong in that... I mean by changing your body language for 5 minutes you can increase to certain extend your testosterone levels... Of course Age, gender and genetics are bigger factors in terms of testosterone production. But still to certain degree you can have certain control over it.
Quote:
Women get horny because of two hormones: testosterone and estrogen. This theoretical discussion is about PEAK Ovulation. Peak Ovulation Theory as applied to pick up asserts that girls will fuck with the bad boy during peak ovulation and the rest of the menstrual cycle, they will get it on with the nice guys.
Peak ovulation will make women hornier by itself, so it means that nice guys or bad boys will have more chances to score... Of course bad boys usually do not feel empathy for others, they just look for their own pleasure and satisfaction so they will easier take advantage of those moments when the women "bitch shields" are a little down, while a nice guy would make sure that both really want to do it.

The vibe of the nice guy with time builds, trust, connection, respect, feeling of safety, etc. and at some point if the respect is mutual the next natural step is just to fuck. But that approach takes time, and is a big gamble to guys. Is not a vibe that you can just use for the 5 minutes time that the usual pick up last, before she cuts you up or shows real interest.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Oh jeez, seriously dude, this post is pathetic. We will argue however the fuck we want and readers can decide what is logical and what is not.
Quote:
Thread Argumentative Style

Before we proceed further, let's define the argumentative style of this thread to even the playing field. These are the basic academic standards in argumentative writing: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/01/

To present your ideas clearly, you might want to consider using some of the more popular analytical frameworks around like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis, or any other widely used analytical framework. Here's a brief on how to apply analytical frameworks: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ar-anframe/

But since this is a PUA community and not an academic community, we will be more liberal. The thread style of argumentation should go like this:

  • Introductory Greeting --> Idea or Counter Idea --> Supporting Facts or Explanations --> Conclusion --> Polite Summary Greeting


INTRODUCTORY AND POLITE SUMMARY GREETINGS

The following or equivalents are acceptable introductory and polite summary greetings in this thread:

1. Fuck you fucktard/idiot/fruitcake/asshole
2. You're a fucking... moron/idiot/faggot/asshole
3. Bullshit./ You are stupid./ You are an idiot./

Any unsupported assertions that are libelous should be considered flaming. For examples, "Your mother is a fucking whore that my football team fucked in the garbage bins down by the alley." "Your dick is maggot infested from untreated gonorrhea." These kinds of arguments will be reported to moderators as flaming.

However, these examples will not be considered flaming: "Your mother is a fucking whore that my football team fucked in the garbage bins down by the alley. Here's the video/ picture of your mother. I have it because you are my neighbor." "Your dick is maggot infested from untreated gonorrhea. Here's the picture of your dick. I know because I'm your STI doctor."

If you find the acceptable argumentative style offensive, DO NOT POST in this thread.

:twisted:

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:02 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Quote:
Quote:
As for hellhound mental masturbation. Duh. Hellhound is by far the worst regular poster on the forum. He spends his time reading misleading abstracts of poorly designed studies and thinks they have any practical application to PUA when of course they do not.
Kindly elaborate why Karl Grammer's and Durante's studies on ovulation are poorly designed. Likewise, since you appear to have a higher level of erudition than Grammer or Durante, please provide your alternative on what a well designed study looks like.

:twisted:
Send me full studies or links and I will tear them to shreds because there simply is NO evidence that your ovulation crap is practical in real life. Statistically significant in some research does NOT mean practically significant. You need to get that into your head. I already crushed that one study by Gangestad and the other idiotic fashion study which only had any relevance in situations where women were primed with attractive women in their area... good luck knowing how a woman was 'primed' before she went out, and even then the difference was 25% in behavior which when you factor in confounding factors at a club or out in day game equals almost no practical benefit.

When I have more time I will post relevant data from the studies (again, I did so in another thread already) to demonstrate that statistical significance doesn't actually mean shit by itself, what matters is also HOW significant and HOW big the gap is. When you take into consideration a zillion confounding factors out there when it comes to actually picking up women, none of these studies so far that I have seen have the ability to have a practical impact on your probability of seduction. This is more or less obvious when one looks at the actual numbers and factors in the VERY imperfect science of detecting ovulation in real life + confounding factors that may be leading to the woman's behavior.

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
Quote:
Send me full studies or links and I will tear them to shreds because there simply is NO evidence that your ovulation crap is practical in real life. Statistically significant in some research does NOT mean practically significant. You need to get that into your head. I already crushed that one study by Gangestad and the other idiotic fashion study which only had any relevance in situations where women were primed with attractive women in their area... good luck knowing how a woman was 'primed' before she went out, and even then the difference was 25% in behavior which when you factor in confounding factors at a club or out in day game equals almost no practical benefit.

When I have more time I will post relevant data from the studies (again, I did so in another thread already) to demonstrate that statistical significance doesn't actually mean shit by itself, what matters is also HOW significant and HOW big the gap is. When you take into consideration a zillion confounding factors out there when it comes to actually picking up women, none of these studies so far that I have seen have the ability to have a practical impact on your probability of seduction. This is more or less obvious when one looks at the actual numbers and factors in the VERY imperfect science of detecting ovulation in real life + confounding factors that may be leading to the woman's behavior.
You're a fucking idiot.

Back pedaling now, hmm?

Shut the fuck up fruitcake if you can't back up your ridiculous claims! Bwahahaha.

:twisted:

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:35 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Quote:
Quote:
Send me full studies or links and I will tear them to shreds because there simply is NO evidence that your ovulation crap is practical in real life. Statistically significant in some research does NOT mean practically significant. You need to get that into your head. I already crushed that one study by Gangestad and the other idiotic fashion study which only had any relevance in situations where women were primed with attractive women in their area... good luck knowing how a woman was 'primed' before she went out, and even then the difference was 25% in behavior which when you factor in confounding factors at a club or out in day game equals almost no practical benefit.

When I have more time I will post relevant data from the studies (again, I did so in another thread already) to demonstrate that statistical significance doesn't actually mean shit by itself, what matters is also HOW significant and HOW big the gap is. When you take into consideration a zillion confounding factors out there when it comes to actually picking up women, none of these studies so far that I have seen have the ability to have a practical impact on your probability of seduction. This is more or less obvious when one looks at the actual numbers and factors in the VERY imperfect science of detecting ovulation in real life + confounding factors that may be leading to the woman's behavior.


You're a fucking idiot.

Back pedaling now, hmm?

Shut the fuck up fruitcake if you can't back up your ridiculous claims! Bwahahaha.

:twisted:

Lol I already did back them up in another thread:

a-girl-asks-if-i-intend-to-sleep-with-h ... 66-30.html

And will do so again if others but you want to see it here vs clicking the link.

Can you even read? Are you sure you aren't a bot that randomly searches for studies and links the abstracts? All this shit is worthless in practice as I have said 100x and said again here. Anyways, you are clearly a delusional idiot, keep sniffing women's panties and measuring their skin temperature. I'm done with you. Welcome to BLOCK. hmm, apparently I cannot block users/put them on ignore officially, but consider yourself ignored from now on, at least by me. Most likely all of those with a brain who know anything about pickup have already ignored your garbage a long time ago.

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
Quote:
Lol I already did back them up in another thread:

a-girl-asks-if-i-intend-to-sleep-with-h ... 66-30.html

And will do so again if others but you want to see it here vs clicking the link.

Can you even read? Are you sure you aren't a bot that randomly searches for studies and links the abstracts? All this shit is worthless in practice as I have said 100x and said again here. Anyways, you are clearly a delusional idiot, keep sniffing women's panties and measuring their skin temperature. I'm done with you. Welcome to BLOCK. hmm, apparently I cannot block users/put them on ignore officially, but consider yourself ignored from now on, at least by me. Most likely all of those with a brain who know anything about pickup have already ignored your garbage a long time ago.
You're a moron.

I've provided Grammer and Durante to answer the OP's question and you segued towards SW Gangestead et al which I've never mentioned to answer the OP's point.

Illustrate why Grammer's and Durante's studies are poorly designed.

Learn to read idiot.

:twisted:


Attachments:
Grammer and Durante.jpg
Grammer and Durante.jpg [ 71.83 KiB | Viewed 6555 times ]

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html
Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:26 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
In the thread that TF linked, he didn't provide the name of the authors nor the title, nor link of the study, he was supposed to be 'ripping to shreds'.

Here's a sample Gangestad et al study from a US government website featuring a peak ovulation cycle study published in the Royal Society of Biological Sciences. It's not an abstract. It's a full study provided for free by a US Federal Government website. The title is: Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability by Gangestad, Thornhill and Garver-Apgar.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

I've provided one graph which shows that 20 out of 54 romantically attached women were sexually attracted to other more attractive men during peak ovulation.

The description of the methodology and results are available in full in that free link.

Are 20 women versus 54 acceptable enough odds for you guys to easily pick up and/or seduce?

:twisted:


Attachments:
Gangestad et al Scatter Plot.jpg
Gangestad et al Scatter Plot.jpg [ 67.6 KiB | Viewed 6549 times ]

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html
Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Quote:
blah blah blah blah blah I'm an idiot blah blah blah blah blah I'm a moron blah blah blah blah blah I suck at life blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I post random charts without context or whole study blah blha lbha lbhal bha I cherry pick random garbage blah blah blah blah blah I never linked to the studies i keep quoting blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lbah I am total idiot blah blah lbha lbhal hba

:twisted:

Yep, I agree with you here

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:40 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
as for your chart .. did you even look at it?lol.. that scatter plot is more or less random as anyone with a fucking brain can see when they look at it which makes the fit of these lines complete random garbage. Hardly a substantial difference. Plus, these scatter plots did not adjust for a HUGE confounding factor that was even discussed by the authors you failed to mention, relationship satisfaction. In otherwords, more absolute impractical bullshit. You also interpreted the chart wrong... there are also a ton of women who were NOT ovulating who were sexually attracted to others as anyone can see from the chart, it's the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters, not the total numbers. Duh. Anyways, Link those studies you like to jerk off to that you keep saying I ignore and I will tear them apart.

NEXT!!!!

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
Quote:
as for your chart .. did you even look at it?lol.. that scatter plot is more or less random as anyone with a fucking brain can see when they look at it which makes the fit of these lines complete random garbage. Hardly a substantial difference. Plus, these scatter plots did not adjust for a HUGE confounding factor that was even discussed by the authors you failed to mention, relationship satisfaction. In otherwords, more absolute impractical bullshit. You also interpreted the chart wrong... there are also a ton of women who were NOT ovulating who were sexually attracted to others as anyone can see from the chart, it's the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters, not the total numbers. Duh. Anyways, Link those studies you like to jerk off to that you keep saying I ignore and I will tear them apart.

NEXT!!!!
This is bullshit pseudo analysis of the figures and graphs. The study is open to everyone else so they can read the entire facts and figures and discern TF's bullshit for themselves.

As for relationship satisfaction, read TF's bullshit take on the correlation of good sex with keeping a girl or seducing a girl, here: does-a-pua-need-to-be-good-in-bed-vt167726.html

:twisted:

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Quote:
Quote:
as for your chart .. did you even look at it?lol.. that scatter plot is more or less random as anyone with a fucking brain can see when they look at it which makes the fit of these lines complete random garbage. Hardly a substantial difference. Plus, these scatter plots did not adjust for a HUGE confounding factor that was even discussed by the authors you failed to mention, relationship satisfaction. In otherwords, more absolute impractical bullshit. You also interpreted the chart wrong... there are also a ton of women who were NOT ovulating who were sexually attracted to others as anyone can see from the chart, it's the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters, not the total numbers. Duh. Anyways, Link those studies you like to jerk off to that you keep saying I ignore and I will tear them apart.

NEXT!!!!
This is bullshit pseudo analysis of the figures and graphs. The study is open to everyone else so they can read the entire facts and figures and discern TF's bullshit for themselves.

:twisted:
Yep, they will read it and see I am right and you are a moron. "pseudo analysis" better than "blatantly misinterpreting and misleading on purpose analysis".

Anyways, at this point I have said enough, per my posts in other threads and this. It is clear that I am right and that women being ovulating has little practical relevance for a PUA. Much more relevant is when a woman is having her period because many men won't sleep with her then or she will be too embarrassed to sleep with you on her period. That is actually practical. This garbage is not. Plain and simple. Keep having fun jerking off to studies, pick and choosing graphs, linking to poorly designed studies, ignoring obvious flaws, posting scatter plots that look more or less random and regressions that have hardly any fit, etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line, you clearly do not know the difference between practical and statistically significant/some garbage someone wrote in an abstract or some tiny difference observed in a study. The most likely reason for this is that you have no actual experience with women other than watching porno and reading studies or jerking off to studies about ovulation, because if you had experience with women you would know nothing you linked to has almost any practical implication. Have fun cherry picking things I said without context etc. to try to save face. It's ok, everyone here already knows you are a KJ idiot, you aren't fooling anyone anymore.

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
Quote:
Yep, they will read it and see I am right and you are a moron. "pseudo analysis" better than "blatantly misinterpreting and misleading on purpose analysis".

Anyways, at this point I have said enough, per my posts in other threads and this. It is clear that I am right and that women being ovulating has little practical relevance for a PUA. Much more relevant is when a woman is having her period because many men won't sleep with her then or she will be too embarrassed to sleep with you on her period. That is actually practical. This garbage is not. Plain and simple. Keep having fun jerking off to studies, pick and choosing graphs, linking to poorly designed studies, ignoring obvious flaws, posting scatter plots that look more or less random and regressions that have hardly any fit, etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line, you clearly do not know the difference between practical and statistically significant/some garbage someone wrote in an abstract or some tiny difference observed in a study. The most likely reason for this is that you have no actual experience with women other than watching porno and reading studies or jerking off to studies about ovulation, because if you had experience with women you would know nothing you linked to has almost any practical implication. Have fun cherry picking things I said without context etc. to try to save face. It's ok, everyone here already knows you are a KJ idiot, you aren't fooling anyone anymore.
Bwahahaha. You're a fucking idiot.

You make dozens of preposterous anecdotal claims and provide no support at all except for bluffs and flatulence with weak methane that cannot even spark a light bulb.

What you're saying only proves that you're a rambling idiot.

:twisted:

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:17 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Quote:
I am the worst poster on this forum. I suck at life. I have never been with a woman, I prefer to jerk off to studies on the internet.
:twisted:
We are in agreement once again

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:31 pm 
Offline
High Priest of Debauchery
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 3271
Location: Paradise Found
Quote:
I'm banging a latex sheep right now with high quality artificial asshole that feels like the real thing. I've picked it up at a bazaar selling imported goods from China. It baaaaas like a real sheep and it has big horns that I like to stroke until I pop my load at its face. Awesome man. You should try it.
That's kind of profound. But I'm not into that shit.

:twisted:

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:35 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 1707
Even your sense of "humor" shows how much of a total fucked up wacko you are... anyways, I am bowing out of this thread. I think I have consistently shown the studies hellhound posts have little to no practical relevance to pick up. Whether or not other posters on this site see that or not is up to them; I have faith they see the truth or at least will look into the actual studies and not just listen to the junk hellhound spews out of his ass. Enjoy the thread gentlemen, and retard.

_________________
http://www.joshsway.com -- dating, online dating, fitness, fashion, and more...


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Can we be honest?

We want your email address. Let me send you the best seduction techniques ever devised... because they are really good.
close-link