- avoid being negative and depressing

- show sexual interest (im being purposefully vague here)

- take the initiative/lead when it comes to closing (K/F/No. closing)

its just a general universal principle of having successful interactions with girls generally. its invariably good practice. there are exceptions and caveats no doubt....few and far between might i add. are we looking for a 100% pure (no exceptions/flaws) set of guidelines...surely not, there can be exceptions/flaws found in all universal principles. i would think avoiding being negative/depressing is a universal principle... it is more helpful than not . the instances whereby it would be unhelpful are quite frankly rare.

this is my standard to which i am judging whether a principle of pua is universal or not. the test has 2 limbs =

1) is the principle more helpful than not helpful in an interaction with a girl?

and

2) are the instances where it is not helpful rare?

the 2nd limb is the decider

not perfect but using the above words "every day understood meanings" should help...lets avoid unnecessary semantics as far as poss.

moving on... i said:

you said:

not necessarily, i can imagine escalating kino in a playful way cos i cant help but feel a non sexual/funny connection with her or i think of teh girl as my little sister etc..
kino/escalation and showing sexual interest can quite neatly be mutually exclusive principles. u can also show sexual interest through words or anything else besides kino

moving on...i said;

you said;

again see above i can imagine getting a no. without kino.. their seperate concepts. i agree the word “close” is shit...i see it more as a milestone eg no. milestone, kiss milestone etc.. its just becoming semantics now tho

also i was being vague as to the manner in which some one shows "sexual interest". people have there own different way s of doing it, i wont be prescribing a particular way. i was not being vague as to the definition of "sexual interest” or its relevance as a universal principle


you said

The answer... an agreed upon test to determine what is universal and what is not…see the above test...Its not watertight but nothing will be, a lot of subjectivism is involved here.

so lets get this shit nailed down so we can proceed

x

firstly respect!

my thoughts;

i think the above is too widely worded and not administratively workable, it leaves open the possibility of not much being agreed upon, eg if 1 person disputes a principle were pretty much fucked from the get go. it relies too heavily on others intellect, which maybe lacking. 100% consensus isnt always a workable standard to judge against. this maybe why previous attempts at this havent got very far. i think my test has a better type of wording, it needs to be stricter maybe but the wording and step by step structure is more administratively workable. this is not a diss by the way or me massaging my ego.

im with u on the whole pragmatist approach to truth! also with u on best intentions and dealing with single principles at a time. to ensure this i propose a new thread per principle eg UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE; KINO? .. UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE: NEG?

b4 we start though we need to nail down an agreed upon test. also is context to be ignored, or should it play a part so as to determine universal principles in different contexts eg HB 10 context is different to HB 6 context?

i propose something close to the following updated test;

1) is the principle more helpful than not helpful in an interaction with a girl?

and

2) are the instances where it is not helpful rare?

and

3) "but for" the use of that principle a sucessful interaction with a girl would not be possible....(maybe this is where context needs to come into it)

now this seriously tightens up the test, possibly a bit to strict for my liking which is why it may be useful for context to be brought into the third limb. the third limb "but for test" is a classic legal causation test. its a much tried and tested way of determining whether something caused something else..a key element to our investigation.

obviously each principle would need to be assessed against each limb and we would collectively need to decide as to whether the principles pass each limb. i propose the standard of simply needing more consensus than not, rather than 100% consensus. the safe guard here is that our consensus will be arrived at through real critical investigation (hopefully) rather than arrived at through people reading fairy tale bull shit in books.


peace

Show value?

i agree consensus is the answer, but that consensus should as far as possible be based on something scientific, like an objective criteria ie a test, rather than a consensus based on intuition and possible flawed understandings. an objective criteria allows contributors to critically analyse what may have really been at play in their interactions.

im surprised at ur resistance to a more scientific and objective approach. surely it reduces the chance of this endeavour turning into BS talk

i advocate trying something more objective rather than relying on old unsuccessful methods; if u always do what uve always done, ull always get what uve always got


tbh i dont trust the groups individual criterium/criterias, nothing personal against anyone but understandings can be flawed. id prefer to set one agreed criteria to judge against, at least as a first port of call.

I am in agreement.
I've tried reading this thread twice now and I'm still not quite sure exactly what is going on, my brain hurts, not enough sleep. Honestly I think you should just have a Newbies FAQ sticky and let people argue and refine answers as they wish or by vote if common agreement cant be found.

breaker, arguing out a topic like this subject matter leads to chaos and no answers. this is why (in the first instance at least) we should judge statements against an objective criteria and take it from there.

respect

Hey, Thought i would get this thing rolling again, i do feel you guys are getting weighed down in semantics
Now i am no expert here but it may get you guys thinking

consider this rough framework -- K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid)

1. Open
a)Mid Level Hook
b)Kino

2. Build Comfort
a)High End Hooks
a)Demonstrate Value
b)Kino

3. Attraction
a)Sexual vibe/frame
b)Escalate Kino/Intimate

4. Conclude
a)Number
b)Kiss Close
c)Venue Change

good luck with ur approach k...so far seems to be going really well

x

ur assuming lack of opposition = consensus, (a purely negative test) thats convenient seen as tho this thread lacks any real structure or coherence...enough to put most off from contributing/opposing

the fact that 3 principles so far that have been supposedly "agreed upon" doesn't mean ur approach is workable with less patently obvious principles of pu, and that doesn't mean that no other universal principles exist, it just means the approach is flawed.

get me yo!