Being yourself vs forcing different (better) behavior?

[dimitri001]

I was watching this video in which Alex of Playing with Fire reviews Hamza's text game advice.

The specific advice given is not so much relevant to what I want to talk about in relation to the video, but rather the broad contrasting philosophies that these two guys espouse. These conflicting views are in particular expressed 2:30-4:10 and 15:40-17:02 of the video.

Hamza's view is that you have to be yourself and behave in a way that is natural to you and in keeping with your personality and nature/character. That to do otherwise and to follow advice you've gotten from a PUA coach, when that advice conflicts with what you are naturally inclined to do, is artificial and that you're not being yourself and is ultimately unsustainable. That you cannot push yourself to behave in a way that contrasts with your natural personality.

Alex's view is that your natural inclinations can be suboptimal and lead to behaviors that will not get you success with girls and that in such cases you have to override your natural instincts and instead do something that you have learned will work. His idea is not to be someone completely different than who you naturally are, but to, when necessary, override your instincts and in this way push your personality in a certain direction so that it will slowly and progressively change.

Now, I found these contrasting approaches very interesting, because I've myself been confused about which I'm supposed to follow innumerable times. My inclination is to be myself, which often fails, but then when I try implementing some PUA advice, it feels very unnatural and artificial and that it can't possibly be that this is how I'm supposed to function with girls. It just feels wrong and uncomfortable. But not uncomfortable in the you need to overcome it way, but like I'm behaving unnaturally, so it inevitably leads me back to being more natural. Basically, I'm more with Hamza.

So which approach do you think is right? Are you supposed to, when your instincts lead you to behave in a way that doesn't lead to success, force yourself to behave differently or is that unnatural and wrong. If you agree with the former, what's your response to the critique that this is artificial and unsustainable?

[G-host]

If you know a better way to be that you desire, do that and eventually it will be the "new you".

[JackZero]

I didn't watch the video because I already know the answer. It's not just about being yourself or suppressing your natural instincts. Instead, it's about developing your own belief system and presenting the best version of yourself. Personally, I believe that if I show a woman that I'm interesting and flirt with her, she will find me attractive. This belief has motivated me to develop my personality and become more appealing to women, which keeps them engaged when they first meet me.

Many of us have attractive qualities beyond our physical appearance, but we often struggle to utilize them because showing our true selves can be scary and vulnerable. However, when we do show our authentic selves and face rejection, it can be painful. That's why the real goal should be to identify what makes us attractive and then figure out how to present those attractive qualities to others in the most optimal way possible.

[TheWhiteTiger]

Your question is very good. In essence, if you look at ALL PUA material out there, you can probably divide them into those two philosophies; Hamza (as well as Zan Parrion, or David DeAngelo) will say that to be attractive you just have to find the attractive you that is natural to you. Other methods like Mystery's Method, Style's Annihilation Method, and Ross Jeffries' Speed Seduction will sell you on a certain system that contains patterns, routines, and "canned" material. So if you're feeling confused, you're probably in good company.

Here's the way I look at this. Canned routines work, and they can be good when there's dull things in the conversation.
I open a lot of women in online dating scenarios and I use one scripted opener so much my autocomplete already knows it. It works, and it's not what I would have thought of saying in a million years.

AFTER that opener, I got no choice except "being myself", but I still have a few regular routines I throw in when I see the opportunity. I can't fake being someone else for a long time, but I can add things to the interaction that make it more interesting for the girl.

Honestly, if you know of something "that will work" that goes against your natural instinct, you may want to consider your natural instincts about how to interact with women (and men) are the result of the environment you grew up in, and as such are also things you learned. Maybe all your life you just had shitty teachers (no offense to anyone in your life).


All in all, inventing another persona really is unsustainable. But changing what you do in those few hours where you just get to know a new girl and you both have shields up and you need to crack through her persona to get to the real person isn't impossible, and isn't problematic.

[ecudes17]

This question, to me, is the fundamental question of the game. This paradox was a major catalyst behind the creation of my book. The duality is frustrating to no end. On one hand, there is a game to be played. It's not just in pickup but in life as well. Social dynamics, reputation, perceived status, power plays etc are all at work in the real world. The reality is that most people who don't "fit in" don't get laid or get ahead. On the other hand, the principles of truth, authenticity, vulnerability, agreeableness, and loyalty are so deeply rooted into our moral code as a society that of course there would be a rift. It's the battle between Jezebel and Ruth. Secularism and Spirituality.

Consider the following two examples: In one situation you're texting a woman and you want to continue because it's enjoyable. The "game" says making her wait a little bit, chase a little bit, will amplify the attraction. If you want to talk, your phone is near you and you're not busy, it's inauthentic to wait or to make her wait. So what's the "right" move? Alternatively, you could be absolutely in love with a woman to the point where every fiber in your being wants to write her love letters peppered with hyperbolic compliments. You want to profess your undying, unyielding love to her and illustrate that you would do nearly anything for her. Game says you cannot, however. Game says you no longer are a prize when you do that, you lose value, she gets bored...

In my book, I made a humble attempt at some sort of solution to this problem. I tried to bridge the gap between ethics (authenticity) and seduction (game)
The results was a proposition. A proposition to become the best version of yourself possible, not in regards to women but in regards to life. "Get a life before you get a wife" I proposed that one should be familiar with the universal "attraction switches" but simultaneously understand that they are not truly universal because individuality exists. Some women legitimately do not like the alpha types. I told people to have interesting stories to tell but to take a natural approach to pick up. I also recommended traditional courtship and monogamy. Taking a personal interest in the women you're talking to, screening her based on your own moral values.

One also has to understand, and this will be a main topic in my next book, personality disorders are far more prevalent in today's society than estimated. Narcissist, Borderlines, Histrionics, and Psychopaths all "play the game." Incorporating that knowledge into the mix complicates matters tenfold.

At the end of the day, I don't think I've cracked the code. It seems like there are two extreme modes of being in regard to life/pickup and an ocean of grey area.

[flyingbanana]

This is a good topic. I think this is why inner game and developing who you want to be is important - cliche from different post, but "fake it until you make it." But more so, there are going to be girls that like you for whatever reason naturally - a lot of PUA would argue that what you say is irrelevant at that point unless you just flat out act crazy/unstable, etc. Most of the communication will be subconscious anyway. I think learning to develop seductive body language is probably even more important than what you say so long as it is in the natural range of conversation topics. Who you are at any given time changes anyway - so your qualities are just what they are in that moment. Think about taking a class or learning a new skill, still the same body but different attributes mentally (or physically). Over time you will mold into who you want to be anyway - maybe think about which types of women you want and make yourself the best version of you to attract that. But ultimately, working on yourself will produce a version of you that women should find attractive and then it will be you that is deciding whether to accept them or not, and not the other way around. So mindset seems most important - I am a man that women love or I will give her a chance to talk to me and decide if I want to let her in to my world type affirmations are probably helpful for this.  I am trying to implement the mindset of thinking of any woman as more of an addition to an already great life (that's the mindset).

[pilgrimmeister]

There is "Faking it until you make it" which is relatively quick to implement, or making changes to your personality over time so that behavior becomes who you are. Many choose the first option as it's seen as a quick route to success, but it is exhausting. After a while, you slip up, she finds out and moves on.

Whereas, if you made changes to your personality over time, it becomes natural behavior, and women tend to stick around. A lot of it has to do with your reactions to different situations. Years ago, I would try and do things to make a woman happy, even make changes to suit her. Nowadays, I really don't care anymore, they can go elsewhere if they don't like who I am and will find someone who I am more compatible with and have more fun with.

[G-host]

"First, its an intention. Then an action. Then a practise. Then a consistancy. Then a habit. Then its simply who you are."

[G-host]

and im thinking, neuroplasticity.. i googled it and found this quote

"Our brains are famously flexible, or “plastic,” because neurons can do new things by forging new or stronger connections with other neurons."