| PUA Forum https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/ |
|
| Direct vs Indirect Daygame for purpose of long-term dating? https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=159045 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | tmaly [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Direct vs Indirect Daygame for purpose of long-term dating? |
I've had a difficult time finding videos and material on indirect daygame where you start conversation in a bookstore or a supermarket based on something situational. Such as "hey what book are you reading, oh I love Kafka" in a bookstore, or "is that soymilk you're buying something you can use in baking?" in a health food store aimed at another shopper. Almost everything I find on the web is about direct daygame, which seems a bit startling (maybe interrupts their train of thought, but I would think would leave them a bit uncomfortable). I would imagine that it would feel more genuine/natural to have a situational opener. I've seen quite a few direct openers and they really seem to aim at getting her number or a make out session, or maybe a date, I'd imagine that the opener should be an open-ended question enough that it could easily turn into a back and forth conversation that leads to further revealing of the other person's interests/lifestyle (as many conversation books on amazon.com discuss). I'd imagine the first goal is to find any situational way possible to establish common ground, interests, lifestyle, etc - and maybe infer/guess (even if badly) who they are, what they do, etc based upon guesses or clues. Such as inferring being a student based on where the bookstore is relative to the university, their age, etc. Or whether the other person is vegetarian at the supermarket because everything in their cart is soy-this-soy-that. I'd imagine a single common interest and shared enthusiasm (maybe a bit of energy back and and forth, a mutual gaze, mutual smile, etc) - might be enough to then slowly transition into semi-generic direct questions ("so are you a student" at the bookstore and "so are you a vegetarian" at the health food store), which would eventually build to more personal details, common ground, moments to interject and reveal yourself as well where you are similar/complementary. I would imagine that she would feel SO much more comfortable with you (and you potentially asking for contact information, planning an activity, etc especially after you both seem excited enough in each other), just by being indirect and making the effort to build that rapport/common ground. Maybe allow her to feel some sort of anticipation/excitement toward you (ie "butterflies") instead of nervousness or awkwardness if you two don't know anything about each other. At some point the conversation needs to switch from the situation to the other person (ie personal interest, flattery, complements, etc) - but I would think it would be embarrassing to start out direct ("you have the most beautiful eyes, I have to meet you, my name is John", etc) to hype up your interest in them only to find out as you continue the conversation that they're not your type at all (in my case, I can't always discern my type by looks alone) - leaving you making a bit of a fool of yourself. I'd imagine that once you know enough about them and you start qualifying yourself so they get interested in you, you can continue the process regardless of direct vs indirect. Are there any other issues when you go indirect vs direct? Or can I pretty much study (and practice) the direct approach except for this indirect "prelude" I discuss above? I will say that the direct daygame approach may get the woman interested in you, but if you're just picking random women on the street, you have a very short amount of time to discover who she is to develop any sense of common ground at all... And it would seem safer/easier when it's in an environment that is situational (like a bookstore or health food store). My gut feeling is that without that necessary rapport, they simply don't know anything about you and more likely could feel awkward about the whole thing later. I would say that for the purpose of seeking dates for a relationship, it would be ideal to instill a strong enough seed of attraction, interest, etc from the get-go, and not chance the anxiety of that first date where you just don't know the other person at all. Situational openers also seem to cut off the conversation in an almost invisible way without any rejection at all. You can't just hard close all the time, as many pickup videos show. Brute force isn't much useful for anything beyond a fling. Some videos I've been watching lately are some from Sasha Daygame, which I will say is ridiculous with his aggressively direct approach and absolutely no conversation development skills to help build common ground. The guys at SimplePickup are ballsy, and I was amazed with their first few videos, but just randomly approaching a woman on the street and saying "wait wait wait, you look cute, what's your name, mine's Kong" - doesn't seem like the starting point of a relationship. It's also the 20-something crowd where college kids are more tolerable of ridiculous antics. Do my thoughts seem to have some merit, especially from people's experiences? Would working on my initial situational conversational skills and coming with a bridge to a direct approach (ie complements), and then working on the process as normal (with such as something like Soul's Daytime Dating), seem sufficient? Or am I missing some other subtle differences? |
|
| Author: | tmaly [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Direct vs Indirect Daygame for purpose of long-term dati |
I have the thought that PUA's may prefer direct over indirect/situational because it gives more consistent results with random women, whereas indirect/situational requires you actually have to have something in common with the woman (ie less odds). Not necessarily that indirect/situational is "inferior" or discouraged, just that what you say very much matters on the environment, you, the woman, and what either of you are doing. Something that has to be thought up on the fly. Ultimately that approach is more unique to the exact situation, and so it can't be mass produced (ie consistently used or memorized). In that sense, maybe PUA's, instructors, etc don't quite experience the more consistent results that they'd get with direct openers. But when you are approaching a dozen women a week and probably won't know her past a month, how you open doesn't need to fit within a long-term vision. They may get the number eventually, but for actual significant involvement in each other's life in the long-term, internal/situational has a certain benefit to it. Direct seems better for statistical/performance reasons only. Though I'm sure there are exceptions. I would also imagine that direct openers are aimed for women who are receptive to flattery (and concerned with looks) and not so much the more "substance" (or "feminist") type of women who are sick of men being shallow/single-minded. There was a video I saw with David Wygant at a farmer's market, talking incredibly smoothly with a woman holding a dog, and the situational opener (the dog) was very smooth and unnoticeable, and they quickly were chatting up. But it required actually having something in common (ie loving dogs). You go to a public venue and spot women who might fit your ideal demographic by a certain obvious clue (like for a vegetarian, it might be someone in line at a vegetarian food vendor). I mean why bother spending your time with someone you very well might not have anything in common with. The whole "getting as many numbers as possible" and "closing for her number in under 2 minutes" and "daygame makeouts" don't seem very impressive (in terms of long-term substance). But of course what your goal is affects how you approach it. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|