Has Pickup really evolved or is it just marketing

Hey guys. I was just doing a bit of thinking on Sunday (which is always a dangerous thing) about the theory of pickup as I was watching some Adam Lyons stuff, as he always talk’s about learning the mechanics (the rules), not actual lines / techniques.

Now I know we all think Johnny Soporno is the absolute Dude, and I’m not going to argue, he is amazing. He says on one of his video’s about we are dealing with the mind of someone from 1000’s of years ago as our evolution doesn’t keep up with society. Not going to challenge that as the Dudes a Dude. But if that’s the case, anyone who comes out with a “new” pickup theory is surly only doing it for marketing reason and to make a quick buck, as everything that worked 1, 5, 10, 20 years ago will work exactly the same way now as the parts of the brain that deal with attraction, haven’t changed for 1000’s of years.

There for, if this stuff actually works, be you using Mystery Method, Style, Ross Jefferies, David DeAngelo, Natural method, cave Manning or whatever, the underlying rules / foundation must be the same. So if the adaptation of the rules into a "method" have been done accurately the result should be the same; it's the adaptation that is the questionable piece.

Retro

Jesus?...

Yes K is Jesus even though he's an Atheist "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." He's also Keyser Soze too

I don't see how that is the case.

Lets take nature, say a bower bird. As you may or may not know how they attract a mate a by building a bower (nest).. the female then come down and inspect the nest to see if it meets there standard and if it does then they mate. Thats the "attraction" switch. If we were teaching pick-up to bower birds who are unsuccessful with women, we teach them how to make a great bower.

How can pick-up and attraction be different things. We learn pick-up (and i'm on about pick-up here, not any other phrase used on this site), to learn how to flip the attraction switch, no other reason, that's why every book / DVD / whatever on pickup talks about attracting in them. If it wasn't why would they talk about it.

Retro

You seem to have mixed things up, pick up is the process of creating attraction and people have different methods of doing this.

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.
No one sees the world in the same way and society changes that's why you explain it in a different way or develop a different method of achieving the same goal.

If you use a broad brush stroke then attraction and pick up can be seen in the same light but when you get down to methods and techniques attraction doesn't have any methods because attraction is the goal pick up is a method of achieving that goal.

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

This all sounds very interesting.

To me, the obvious background is our biological past.

We are creatures that have evolved for both sexual and natural selection.

We compete on these, and in theory the 'best guy' gets the girl. The guy with the most 'value'.

For me, the different strands of pickup are all aiming at the same thing - using different means. How do we get across the fact that we have value? Is it more effective to DHV (mystery), or to act higher value (RSD), or show higher value through pre selection/social circle (AFC Adam).

It's all the same, right? If anyone adds anything decent to the community I'm happy to give it a whirl. Also, if I make stuff, I will also give that a whirl. There will no doubt be new means of achieving the same goal in the future - more pickup stuff.

However, there is also re-hashed stuff.

I don't think that you can define 'attraction switches' for all women - there is variation (but at the same time common themes).

---

Now that I'm starting to get more experience and success with his stuff I'm starting to see how the different strands fit together - I can understand how they are effective, how attraction is built. kowalski - I'd imagine you have the same experience, right? Even if you don't use a method, and don't like it, you can get the idea of how and why it works... (exept NLP - I think that is a bit different)