If you were previously eating at a luxury restaurant, and then changed to a coffee shop at the same time as getting more money, ... I don't understand the connection? Wouldn't the question be "who did Zac overtake to be in a position to eat at the luxury?"
Besides game or fundamentals, what else does one need? Prostitutes don't count in this context.
Points can be a way to show who is better at something. Like how guys use it to rate women.
3) Errrrr [LOL]
But seriously, what I meant by 99pts should have added 99pts out of 100max.
Someone works on their game and fundamentals and is now at 99pts, when they were previously at 50 or 70 or 20.
The point was, if someone like J had worked hard on game and fundamentals and gotten experience, and he was sitting at 90pts... then someone comes along and does even better.
Its not that J got slack.... the others put in a bit extra, and now they're ahead of J.
Think of it like the number system men use to rate women. Except we apply it to men, and its not based on looks. It's based on your level of fundamentals and game.
So, that youtube you mentioned earlier, the 'left over' unmarried women ,yes that I feel bad for the ones that are left over.
You tell me, you're the experienced one. Maybe you could put some of looks under fundamentals like bodyfat %. But some aspects of things like face shape would be out of your control.
This 1% thing seems to be based on a theory that 1% of men get.... You know what? This isn't to do with my argument.
My argument is you have a looks rating system for women. 10 is the max. Take that system, change it from 'looks the best 10' to 'best game and best fundametals makes the male 10'
The thing is, anyone[besides outliers maybe some retarded people you mentioned] can learn game, right? Anyone[besides outliers] can improve their fundamentals? That's what the gc site says, most men can improve their game and/or fundamentals. Game is not looks. Game is not money. Those would come under fundamentals, or they would have their own category.
Maybe status could come under game.
Game is technical things, eg verbal game, maybe indirect game, maybe leading her here or there asking her home, kino/touch eg touching her arm.
Fundamentals mighte be posture/standing up straight, fashion, things
From this thread about game or fundamentals
I couldn't agree less that height and muscle are the core determinants of having a masculine presence. Attitude rules over everything else. That's the problem here--you aren't in touch enough with just how valuable a man is to a woman, WHEN HE MAKES HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY. Everything is about...
www.skilledseducer.com
I understand about LMS, but simply using game + fundamentals as a barometer, was a way to keep the argument simple. I'm also not sure how significant much LMS makes a difference considered its not one of the main things pushed for on the main website. Either way, back to the argument, the idea was to keep it simple.
What I'm saying with the points on the hierarchy, was keeping it simple and not looking at outliers[retarded people you mentioned for example] and if most men can learn top notch game, they can overtake another man.
Man J reads gc and learns about game, goes out gets experience 2days a week for a year. Now he does well with women. 90pts out of 100pts on the hierarchy. He gets with 9s and 10s.
But then, every other man reads gc and learns about game, but they do this 7days a week.So eventually they actually overtake man J, because even though man J is up there at 90pts of game out of 100max, these other guys put in even more effort and got more game. so they bang more women. The women these 95pts men now have the opportunity to sleep with, aren't interested in J anymore. J is now lower than these other men due to having less game[his 90pts vs 95pts]. But 90pts[verbal game good, good at leading etc, fundamentals good good fashion, stands up straight etc] out of 100pts in and of itself is quite good. These other guys have even better fashion or stand up a tiny bit more straighter or okay thats fundamentals but you get my drift. They get 'even better' in comparison, better game or better fundamentals and boom.
To demonstrate this male ranking system eg the male equivalent of a 9 or 10.
Check method B) example II, below.
There's different ways of grading a high school class of people, right?
Method A) Anyone over 90 correct answers out of 100 questions, gets an A.
Method B) The top 10% of people get an A regardleess of what their answers were in and of themselves.
example I) That means if you only get 50 correct answers out of 100 questions, but the rest of the class got 49questions right, you get an A.
example II) It also means, if you got 92 answers right out of 100 questions, but all your classmates got 95 answers right out of 100 questions, you get an F.
That example II) is what I've been trying to communicate.
J might get 92 answers correct out of 100, which is really really good , ya know? But then if every other man improves their game/fundamentals or in your case LMS, and all these other men except J now get 95 questions right out of 100... Boom. J now at the bottom , despite 90 questions right out of 100 questions being quite good, in and of itself.
TO put it another way. You have a limited number of "10s" and if more men compete for a limited number of 10s, not every man can have a 10.
You have to overtake a man , or have a man fall below you, to get with a 10, if she's already dating a 'male 90pt hierarchy'.
Like I mentioned to Zac, my question, was if every man came here and got better with women, they can't all get a 10 or even a desireable woman, someone will miss out. And the more recent clarification was , does missing out mean they get no woman at all, or does it mean they do get a woman[if equal population of men and women if you really want to add nuance] but the woman they get is a 1?
Here's another example. Even though a persons height is 'locked', you can wear height shoes.
Say man J is 6'4, quite tall. Not just on comparison to others, but tall in and of itself.
Then next day, all other men wear super height increasing shows they're all appear to be, 6'7. Boom
Even though J is 6'4 and thats tall in and of itself, the competition increased SO much, NOT because you did anything wrong, just because they put in much more work make their shoes bigger.
But replace 'height increasing shoes' with "game" and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. Even if you dont "lose your job" if every unemployed person and currently employed person, goes and gets a better cooler or higher paying or whatever job than you, its not that you 'lost your job' its that others overtook you.
Is this making sense?
And whats the answer to the question? The guy that has now been overtaken ,does he now get what, not laid at all , or he can get laid but only with 1/10 because he now the lowest game in comparison to everyone else now in this secenario?
To be clear, I'm not counting prostitutes. I don't think that's even recommended anywhere on this site.
I know you were just answering the earlier question about 75% getting laid, so you were trying to cover all the bases, but to remove any doubt, this discussion, prostitutes do not count as getting laid.
First off, what's with the insulting comments? Perhaps a bit surprising to see Tony Robbins in your sig, yet you go around insulting randoms. Knock it off.
Change "all the time" to a LTR that lasts a few months, a few years? Sometimes they even last decades...
Don't forget, how many marriages actually do last till death. 50%? Add in others that do LTR that last months/years and they're off the market for a very very long time.
I found
this
So 40% of marriages in ages 20-25 do not end in divorce. And the ones that do divorce, their LTR lasted 8 years.
So they'd be 28-33 when they separate. Are you trying to suggest that the bulk of those married in their younger years are going around sleeping with others and not doing monogamy?
There is one question though, what % of people in those ages are getting married?
Well there's
this
So is that marriage that got married this year, or total people 'currently married'?
Found
this
Okay but thats over 15. We're talking about 18-24 or 18-34 the younger end of the scale.
There was an gc
article recently, on the gc site here, that did a survey.
So that contradicts what you're saying. Okay but I did find something that might, keyword might, backup what you're saying
From
here it's a graph, so I've taken the 2018 and individual pulldown menu and put the 18-34 results
That survey, I'm guessing, was asking both men and women, where as the gc one was asking women only. I don't know if that makes one more the truth, than the other.
So 51% no steady partner. I'm very wanting to know why that contradicts with the gc study for the same age group.
Because the gc study says 17% no steady partner. Big difference.
The gss data still indicates, 43% of people are married or living together or partnered and living together[15% + 28%].
So thats nearly half. Add in the partnered but living apart, another 6%, and we have 49%.
Thats significant. Likewise 51% no steady partner is
news.iu.edu
