There Are 5 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Daniel on 16 February 2007:

   Not only that! It seems that whenever you speak about this in the “community”, People will start to attack you and take it personally for some reason. I’ve been attacked many times for saying that. Quitting the routines and gimmicks made me a much more happier guy I am right now. No doubt.
2. 

   Comment by Sting on 16 February 2007:

   routine use is like religon - its repuation is known through the people who use them.
   in and of itself - a routine based style is neither good nor bad.

   Stephen sounds like a guy who has given up eating pizza and now gets judgemental whenever he sees someone eating pizza (”i just don’t like to see someone ruining their health…”)

   IMO, he’s making too big a deal of this. using routines may or may not be the best way to learn - but it is not going to kill off your masculinity or corrode your personality. thats ridiculous.
   He’s confusing means (using routines) with ends (being socially dominant).
   Routine usage is a PROVEN way of learning. Stephen himself is an example of its benefits - as are TD, and the MM and VA lot. if he’s come up with what he thinks is a better way… great! but the degree to which he’s bashing routines here is more a reflection of where he’s at then what students are at, IMO.
   RSD have also moved away from routine based teachings - and TD, more acceptingly, simply puts it as - “i used to do that, now i do this and right now i think this is better”. no sweat under the collar.

   A problem i forsee in natural games teachings are Worthiness issues. everyone has barriers - some people can game a 5 beautifully, but start weirding out at a 6 and some people can game a 9.5 beautifully but start weirding out at 9.5632 etc.
   with routines, at least you have something to say. a natural games student, with no real stock material will get even more uncomfortable in this situation. Having something to say gives you confidence, going freestyle before your ready to… will have to deal with this in his own way.

   not a bad post - would be better if he mentioned what he proposes as an alternative to teaching routines. all this big chunk “real man” stuff sounds nice, but turning a regular Joe into one is a different matter.

   cheers,
   Sting
3. 

   Comment by Jim on 17 February 2007:

   I actually think Mr. Nash should explain himself further. If he’s talking about gaming (for lack of a better term) 5-8’s, he’s most probably correct. You don’t really need routines. HOWEVER, if one wants to game 9-10’s, you better bring routines (or fame and wealth). Want to know why? Mr. Nash knows why. You see, I believe he was living at ProHo with Style and if he wasn’t he was most certainly involved with the same chat boards (Mystery’s Lounge for one) that Style was. I read some old posts by Style where he talks about dropping his routines and he wasn’t able to game the 9-10’s. They all thought he was a cool and funny guy, but he wasn’t able to generate attraction. This is Style and he wasn’t able to do it!! What do you think the everyday guy off the street is going to do without routines? Style also posted that the flaking went way up when he didn’t use routines. Mr. Nash knows all this and yet he continues to say what he says. He really needs to qualify his statement. He knows that no matter what the everyday guy off the street does to improve himself (outside of becoming famous or filthy rich), he will always need routines to generate attraction in the 99th percentile women (the super-elite).

   Jim
4. 

   Comment by Stephen Nash on 22 February 2007:

   I will post here what I posted on my blog in reply to these comments:

   Thanks for all the comments. I love it when people reply to posts. It really helps me think thru things further, as well as helps me understand where I might be able to make myself clearer in my teaching philosophy.

   All I can realy relay here is my experience as well as what I have observed. OK? So, here are some replies to some of what was asked about above:

   First of all - and this is a very important point. You always attract at your level. You cannot attract a woman who lives at a higher social level than you. So, if she is a “10? and you are a “5? - regardless of what you say to her - you will not attract her. You might get her to laugh at some things that a “10?-guy might say, but as far as actually attracting her into a palpable romantic tension (necessary for a sexual encounter, as well as a long-term relationship), no words or gimmicks you say will help you. This is why I place the emphasis on self-development and in becoming that which you seek. If you experience low-to-no success with women, and yet you still believe that a kit of gimmicks will get you to the promised land, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

   In my work, I place the emphasis on lifestyle and personal development. Becoming yourself. Routines, which I mentioned in the paragraphs above, are the beginning - the necessary training wheels. But like any boy, you have to drop them eventually - whether they are yours or his, or Style’s or whomever’s…being real demands nothing canned. Women interested in real relationships will not be attracted to you unless you bring the real goods to the table. Again, you attract at your own level. If you want to attract women of a higher quality, you will have to raise your level first. Allowing yourself to believe that you can mimic this implies a lack of experience - which is FINE. Gaining that might be the next hurdle.

   I am not an advocate of “the game” nor of “pick-up” - its jargon and mentality are no longer suitable for me. However, in the experience of ProHo, flaking went up astronomically the more structured we got…that’s a fact. Women could smell the BS on our carefully crafted words and stunts…and they ran for the hills (and not the Hollywood Hills either mind you). Mystery, Style and I were the only ones who got laid at all in the final three months I was there. The rest tried nobly, but came home empty handed each and every night. Experience tends to met this out for everyone though.

   Ultimately guys, if you are looking for higher quality women, you will have to raise the quality of yourselves first. You cannot mimic what you do not have. Just can’t be done. Any belief other than that - in my experience only - implies a lack of experience…which is why I don’t buy any of it, anymore.

   The CEIC model embraces routines only in-so-far as helping guys learn the actual skills beneath them. Being willing to drop the training wheels is not for the faint of heart - not at all - but separating the wheat from the chaff happens in all walks of life, each and every day. Why should we be any different?

   SN.
5. 

   Comment by Sting on 23 February 2007:

   Stephen -

   nice. i think we more or less agree, just semantic differences going on here.
   I have long been of the belief that its practically impossible to “fake it”, not just consistently but AT ALL. for 5 minutes or 2 minutes. something always feels “off” - and usually the people around can sense it, too.

   as for the benefits or otherwise of routines, its a question of what to what degree the routine is doing the “work” and what degree the person is doing the “work”. too much of the former and too little of the latter is a losing philosophy.
   a routine that conveys the sarger’s personality is cool. more often in the community a routine is used to HIDE the real personality and SUBSTITUE a false one in its place. thats not so cool -
   a) it doesn’t work
   b) it doesn’t feel good even for the sarger
   Mystery still uses routines, and always has.
   Being in the moment and using a routine simeltaneously takes some getting used to - but it can be done. and its damn effective!
   More often than not, its not done.

   On a much simpler level -
   a) you improve socializing by actually socializing
   b) most people are uncomfortable socializing with strangers the way we do
   c) hence, having what your going to say lined up is JUST GOOD SENSE.

   … the way a chess player has the opening sequence of moves down pat - no thought necessary.

   >Mystery, Style and I were the only ones who got laid at all in the final three months I was there.

   in other words, the guys who lived in single rooms?

   cheers,
   Sting

Post a Response