Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Are you trying to say that natural game is the same as NLP type stuff?
Of course they're are going to be underlying principles that are the same but there are also differences, reinvention's and new interpretations of these principles. [/b]
|
No, i'm not saing that natural game is the same as NPL.... i am saying exactly what you just have, in that the underlying principle has to be the same. The attraction switch (regardless of how it is flicked), has to be flicked, to pick someone up.
The pick-up piece is the theory ( like Einstein's theory of relativity). You have to first discover the switch, in my example before of the bower bird, what qualifies a well built bower, and once you know that you then work on how to construct that, which is the theory.
SO
If you take Ross Jefferies (i'm not a fan, and have morel issues with what he does), if you strip back his words and what he does to "this is the attraction switch",, the "this is the attraction switch" has to be the same as "the attraction switch" in Mystery Method and Natural and Cockey funny and what ever, after all we are after flicking "the attraction switch" in a female human.
What i was reading / watching is that, why look at approaching the problem from the top down? we read a theory on how to fix the problem, be it mystery, natural, cocky funny. Why not look at it from the bottom up, not words, or line, or how you look or how you act and build your own "what works", irrespective of the theory.
Any programmers in the house?
If your writing a computer program, at the heart of the computer is just 1's and 0's. You need to know how to flick that 1 to be a 0. Some people write at the top level, a 4gl and write in C#,
VB.net, Delphi. This is our theory, our natural game, our mystery method, thoes are people that have chosen a path to make a computer do what they want. You could tackle the problem lower down the stack, the assembler language, the machine code, braking it down at a lower level. Hence why i've said, what ever categorically worked 20 years before, is no different then any theory that comes out now and categorically works, the underlying rules are the same. 10 years ago i was programming in c++, i moved to C# as it was quicker deployment and easier, but i could still choose to write in c++.. at the core, the result is the same.
This is why i've just started looking at some AFC Adam stuff. he talk's about learning the rules, not the routeens, which seems (to me anyway), a great way of looking at the problem.
Retro