i come to realize that i can talk to woman in calm enviorments like the daytime, on the street, etc But when i get to a high value club where the music is blasting and people are moving alot i freeze up.

last night i went to a club event and there were soo many sets that i froze up. even when i talked to a girl i already knew i started to word fumble and the mystery method started to slip my mind. I noticed by default i always try this "well we are married and im divorcing u" opener.. but i noticed woman are growing annoyed.

any suggestions

Yes. And the sooner you ditch MM, the better off you'll be.

wat u mean ditch it?

like don't use it, because it sucks shit

so what do you recommend.. i read Magic bullets, Venusian arts, Tao of badass, speed seduction, and some other little stuff.. i just started applying them though

Being yourself.

Do adopt the 3 second rule. The faster you throw yourself in a set, the better off you will be. Sink or swim.

It seems it's the era of panning Mystery lately but the guys principles of the attraction process are very sound and a lot of the latest PUA methods have MM at their core.

Remember: Mystery was the first to elucidate upon the evolutionary path which has created the hardwiring circuits in our brains which act beyond conscious control. ALL PUA methods act on this in one form or another.

You hear a lot of guys giving the advice "Just be yourself" the problem is if you're an AFC then being yourself is going to keep you AFC. Naturals are the only ones where being yourself is sound advice; the rest of us have to work at it.

I recommend:

1) David DeAngelo.
2) Mystery
3) RSD Tyler Durden.
4) 60 years of challenge

Take the principles from the above and incorporate them into your identity to create your own system.

Actually evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins had been talking about this for years, and even still these theories have been put forth by evolutionary theorists at least 3 decades ago. The principles of Sexual Selection were written about by Charles Darwin in 1859. 'Mystery' did not originate any of these ideas and his views of them are overly simplistic.

I know. Mystery even quotes Dawkins in his book. What I mean was Mystery was the first to introduce the principles to the PUA community and develop a method based upon them; thats why I said "elucidate"

I don't agree with all his stuff (7 hours to get an HB in bed? What about SNL's or even the Apocalypse opener) but the science is solid.

Ross Jefferies was the first to introduce speed seduction to the community but it doesn't mean he invented hypnosis.

The only meaningful PUA material is RSD or 60yoc. 60yoc for building a frame to help better understand motivation behind women's behavior, RSD for being the most honest, authentic approach (think what Tony Robins to motivation, Tyler Durden is to pickup) geared toward building solid INNER game so you are that guy, not somebody who has to rely upon techniques and routines (in other words not being himself) to build attraction.

I agree with what your saying just from a different viewpoint. Inner game comes from success it doesn't just appear from nowhere and the best way to achieve success is by starting with the basic MM and getting yourself in the rAFC stream, use the success you're getting then move on to 60 and RSD. It won't do any harm. I would hazard that nearly all the moderators and forum leaders on here started with MM just like I did.

MM is too methodical, human relationships are fluid, dynamic (always changing), to set a blueprint or formula on how to interact with others is a sure-fire to 1) get overly analytical/stuck in one's head, and 2) increase your anxiety as if you don't follow each stage to the letter as prescribed, you'll deem the interaction as a failure likely prematurely. I strongly urge anyone who wants to become better with women to stay away from formula-like strategies as it will actually impede your ability to developing pro-social behaviors which lead to attraction.

I took it more as a guideline. I incorporated the science into my own method but never used the actual 3 stage model. Knowing why something works- as in the evolutionary science- is the most important thing.

You can't narrow human interaction down to science, that's the fallacy behind such logic, ironically. It would be more fruitful having a few useful frames and having a basic understanding of the foundations for human behavior, but to rely on this for pickup is misleading as the distal and proximal motivations behind human behavior aren't always so clear by observing behavior.

Getting hands-on, real world experience trumps everything else. Sure you'll crack a few eggs in the process but that's where the learning comes in.