This post is also available in: Deutsch
Neophytes who have stumbled into discussions about game gently but persistently have their doubts allayed as the picture of human sexual dynamics becomes clearer, but one skeptics’ framework remains difficult to dislodge, and that is the belief that game is contextual, and that what will work for one man won’t necessarily work for another.
But this superficially plausible belief relies on a misunderstanding of the nature of game. Skeptics often wrongly conflate the idea of “pickup lines” with the plethora of techniques that constitute the discipline of “game”. They envision a world where specific lines substitute for conceptual knowledge and holistic mastery, and from this faulty premise criticize targeted tactics as unsuitable for this or that kind of man.
But without a grasp of the concepts, the quotable lines will never be more than parlor tricks with which newbs can trip themselves up and ignoramuses can spotlight into easily digestible soundbites for the amusement of their loser audience. One must learn the game concepts and the overarching strategy before applying the pointed techniques, or risk babbling incongruent nonsense severed from situational demands.
Commenter YaReally elegantly explains this universality of game concepts and the confusion that leads to the common misperception by students and hecklers of game that only a subset of men can benefit from game.
For ME, [this line, “there’s no reason to go blow $20 on drinks, you could get a lapdance for that lol”] works because it’s congruent to me. I set the frame early on of being the type of guy who would think in those terms. Bob the harmless nice guy from Accouting saying it would get blown out. Russell Brand or Tommy Lee wouldn’t.
This is why I don’t give a lot of word for word examples of my game and just explain the concepts/structure behind them instead. Not a lot of guys, esp who are just starting out learning, would be able to congruently say the things I say. But at the same time, the words themselves are irrelevant…the concepts/structure are what cause attraction.
My push/tease/disqualifier might be “sorry I don’t fuck ugly chicks. But come back when I’m done with this beer and you’re blurry.” Whereas Bob from Accounting might push/tease/disqualify with “sorry you’re not my type, I don’t like high-maintenance women.”
Both versions would cause the girl to go “omg!!” and qualify themselves, because it’s the concepts/structure that’s key.
Someone new to game will say, “Ah, the crass beer goggles line is the ticket to endless poon!” without realizing that the game is not the line, but instead is, as YaReally stated, the underlying concept of “push/tease/disqualify”.
Bob from Accounting would likely get blown out if he spit a line that called a girl ugly, and then Bob would go home and squat in his masturbatorium, railing online about how game is a lie and everyone who writes about it is a huckster. But if Bob was a wiser man with a more temperate disposition, he would return to the well of game knowledge and discover that women autonomically respond less to the precise semantical schemata than to the subconscious cues of being pushed away, teased, and shrewdly disqualified as potential sexual partners.
Bob would then realize that the push/tease/disqualify game concept is valid, but he needs to apply the concept with an eye toward congruency with his personal vibe and presence, and in conjunction with environmental constraints. So the next time Bob ventures out, he tells a woman she’s “not his type”, because she’s “too high maintenance”, and like magic he’s getting a better response.
The game concepts don’t change; the expression of the concepts change. If you were a car salesman, would you sell a Porsche the same way you sell a Honda? Of course not. But the psychological triggers that you use to get people to buy are the same. That’s the fundamental truth of game, only you’re selling yourself instead of a car.