Why Routines Get a Bad Rap
I think the issue on why routines get a bad rap from other PUAS comes from two areas:
- 1. Market Differentiation. To differentiate one's own method from the market leader, some PUAs discredit techniques and then offer their own unique selling proposition. There are other ways to breach the barriers to entry when a market leader is strongly positioned but discrediting the market leader is the most obvious way to do it.
2. Mistaking Routines with Canned Openers/Responses/Closers. It's easy to see why a highly popular opener will no longer work. When an HB hears that opener more than a hundred times from dozens upon dozens of guys, it gets annoying. The thing is, many miss the nonverbal component and paraphrasing to fit the context of the interaction. With Ezo's Donald Duck and cousin Gladstone example, you'll realize that routines have a nonverbal component too. Plain and simple. If you don't learn the nonverbal component of routines, you're at a great disadvantage.
Which Routine is Bullshit or Not
As Ezo also pointed out, learning from the routines that other PUAs have already perfected is the most efficient way to learn. However, the problem comes from telling which is bullshit and which is not. If we just take advice from anybody and we are not selective about whom to take advice from, we will be wasting a lot of time, money and effort on unsound, theoretical advice.
When selecting which advice to take or which PUA to learn from, dissect what a PUA says and relate it to your previous experience and observations. If you have interacted with a sufficient number of people already, some of these PUAs approaches, theories or advices will make sense based on your own past interactions. You'll see a pattern.
You can also relate these PUA approaches with scientific studies if these are scientifically sound. A scientific study with good methodology has accurate measurement techniques and equipment that no PUA Field Report or Lay Report can ever duplicate. But of course, most of these studies were made in a laboratory environment and not done in-field.
The third and most important thing to do to tell if a routine is bullshit or not is to test it in-field. No amount of debating or argumentation can ever take the place of seeing how the routine works or does not work in-field. In fact, debating and arguing that this PUA is bullshit or a delusional liar is a total waste of time. It just feeds the ego of the guy who wants to brag about that he is sane and honest at the expense of another person without laying his own method or approaches on the line that other people can field test or validate for themselves.
Likewise, testing routines in-field can bring a lot of good surprises that the PUA whom you borrowed these routines from can never fully or clearly explain.
Good Surprises from Field Testing Routines
For instance, before devoting focus on the eyefuck, most girls break eye contact or look down when I look at them. Now with the eyefuck even with extremely shy girls, I've noticed that girls maintain eye contact for long periods of time when you're eyefucking them. I've also noticed a milder form of the unmistakable look of love. I would estimate less than 60% of intensity but still significant.
When they triangulate from my eyes down to my crotch, I pull a classic DeAngelo routine while I exaggerate the protrusion of my crotch, "I hate the way you look as if you're undressing me." And add my own sexual innuendo with some mild pumping motions, "Maybe you're thinking of grabbing my hard and throbbing dignity and pride and grind on it and take away all of the purity and values that I have. (Translated from the vernacular. It's a line that girls use in drama shows. It goes something like this, "Niluray-luray niya ang aking puri't dangal at nilapastangan ang aking pagkababae. Isa siyang ahas!")" The girlie reactions are always the same. They kino me a lot and giggle. They even laugh out loud when I pull the, "Isa kang ahas!"
I know that Warped Mindless does not want any of those C&F lines. I'll never know what he meant by that until I test the no C&F lines with his eyefuck routine. He could be right that my f-closes would be more efficient without the C&F stuff. But it will take some deprogramming to remove the C&F routines from my system.
Apologies for the Thread Hijack
I can't help but expound some more on Ezo's insight. It's just so right based on first hand observations and field experiences.
