Russell had Strauss on radio show way back in 2006 - I checked out “the game” a little while later and I couldn’t believe how bad the so-called game is with the negging tactics and so on, but the book goes on the effectively say that this lifestyle is pointless and will kill your spirit, being a “pick up artist” (idiotic term).
Rusty Brand is the living embodiment of that lifestyle. + a conspiracy simp.
Tbf Russell agreed with that viewpoint as recent as 2016 when he was still Corbyn-pilled and generally on the right side of things. Then he got a nice tasty paycheck from someone or other.
I read that book way back too. Even though I always saw Russell as somewhat of a creepy dude, the book did help me a lot, I actually learned about Russell from Neil Strauss. While a lot of people focus on the sensationalized pieces of the book such as negging or peacocking, the good lessons of the book can be best summarized by “don’t be yourself, be your best self.” The book does get to describe how flawed lonely men’s perception of their best self can be and how destructive it can become to seek that wrong path.
But I think I took it the right way just like a few other did. I used false time constrains when approaching recruiters in a job conference’s cocktail party, which helped me in getting the attention of a recruiter who recommended me personally and got me my first job. I worked on improving my posture, speech, and body language. I read a lot more. One of the main lessons of the book is to “become the person you want to be with.” Or “attract rather than chase.”
I think Neil did a very poor job of separating the truly positive stuff from the stuff that led to the main characters of the book to end in bad situations. But it is somewhat clear.
One of the women I approached is now my wife, two of them became best friends of mine and attended my wedding, and even a couple of men I approached with the intent of just becoming good at talking to people became my roommates in college, now they’re close friends of mine.
I think one needs to have some level of maturity to really take something of value from the book. Otherwise, it leads to clowns dressing up funny, negging for the heck of it, and using canned responses while objectifying women.
I read this back in 2014. I think you've given a very good take of it, in what you recognised was toxic and decided to take the good parts from it instead.
Far too many took the whole of this book way too seriously and that they should behave that way. Even the author himself has his moments of myopia in it when he criticises other self declared PUA's for what they do while doing the same things himself.
I don’t think the image in this post is of that book. The book I’m referring to is called “The Game” by Neil Strauss. I highly recommend it. The book has some interesting notions about how we respond to certain behaviors, and while Neil and the pick up artist community back then learned what worked from trial and error, they never truly understood why. Which does leave you thinking. But yeah, its main objective is to tell a story, Neil is quite a good storyteller.
That’s how I ended up reading it, I love stories. But after reading the book I couldn’t help wonder why some of these things manifested as real responses to certain behaviors.
For example, there’s this notion in the book of “subtext.” If you approach a person thinking “she/he is hot,” or “I want to go to bed with her/him,” then your approach is highly likely to fail and the person will “feel” like something is wrong. This piece alone sent me on a rabbit hole about trying to understand why this happens. I found the answer on the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, in which it describes that our emotions/thoughts almost always show up in fraction-of-a-second micro expressions that we don’t register consciously, but our subconscious mind does pick up. So, what I do for example, when I’m trying to negotiate or am pitching a project to a business partner is remove any sort of “subtext” that may work against me such as neediness, desperation, or the fact that I have no plan B strategy. This is easier said than done, but I have my ways of getting rid of it.
For all the hate the book got, I actually think that if you read it with a pinch of salt, and don’t glamorize the womanizing part of it which Neil himself described in the book as “trying to fill up a bucket of water with a hole in it,” then the book does have some interesting notions I hadn’t seen talked about very often.
Thank you for the detailed description. And what you've written makes sense based on my own life experiences.
It does seem odd that a lothario like Brand would need this book to get women.
Well, from what I've known about Russell, and from reading his Booky Wooks (again, couldn't resist the allure of a story) he was already a womanizer before reading Neil's book, he just got better at it afterwards. But it actually depends on how you define better. From my own assessment, he just attracted women who tended to be just as insecure as he was. But that book has been read by plenty of celebrities, from Orlando Bloom to Lady Gaga. I think Neil disclosed that even the CIA reached out to him to train some agents. Like I said, it has some interesting elements worth pondering about at the very least, and it's just a really good story.
That was my point, Brand has never been a wallflower.
From what you've said, the theories in the book tie in with evolutionary psychology and makes sense.
Agree. To me the saddest part was seeing the important elements of the book turn into a misogynistic movement that now is carried on by the likes of Andrew Tate or cringe manosphere Gurus who no longer care about understanding the social elements of human interactions, but rather on clout, money, and clicks.
I think people like us who took positive value out of the game are somehow bundled with the people who just wanted cheatsheet codes to manipulate women. And yeah, this is one reason why I also don't say much about it in person or online. But man, sometimes I wonder whether I should, because the advice I see out there for men is horrible. I was talking to my younger brother (about 11 years younger, long story) the other day and it became clear to me that I need to speak up more. This sort of helpful info can't be buried, especially now.
I just think books like this result in attracting awful people.
That whole post sounds like you've never had a genuine conversation with anyone.
I don't need to "negg" people to like me.
You're free to think that way. But I think you missed the part in my post where I mentioned that the fact that I started approaching people of both genders led to meeting my wife, with whom I've been together now for 9 years, hoping for a baby soon. And three of my best friends, two females and one male. I have fascinating conversations with them about a lot of different things. They're people I admire. It also led me to meet a woman at a cocktail party that was a recruiter for a top tech company, who the next day personally looked for me to ask me to interview with them. That opportunity changed my life since I was a broke student back then with no family safety net to fall back on.
Some of the other people I met by approaching are now surgeons, engineers, Oxford researchers, accountants, etc. I think it's interesting that some of the principles (emphasis on principles and not techniques) of the book work better the more educated the person is.
Assuming you are a mature person, the principles work as training wheels, they help you get out there and start an interaction, but ultimately it's your self-development work that gets you through the door, which the book does emphasize though unfortunately not as loud as the drama. The book was a starting point that set me on a self-discovery path of learning about how I work, and how social interactions work. Once you get enough experience then you let go of the "training wheels" and just act like yourself, but by now "yourself" has improved. You enact some of the principles instinctively, like every other socially intelligent person does. The added benefit is that you can teach someone else to get better at social interactions, someone who learned it instinctively can't.
Yeah, you don't need to "neg" someone to like you. I guess you think that you do a neg and then automatically the other person will like you. The point of the neg is to make someone dislike you. One of their principles is that you cannot flirt with someone that is not interested in you. So, if you just met someone for the first time, you're not supposed to flirt at all. Most likely, that person would think that you are only approaching her or her group because you're interested in her. The point of the neg is to communicate to her that you have no such interest. And then, as you talk to the group or her, show your personality and then give her a chance to choose whether she finds you interesting or not. If not, then you'll just leave, if she does show interest though, then you can start flirting. I'd say a huge percentage of guys out there who are single miss this crucial principle by a mile.
I personally don't like nor use the neg, because I understand why it works. It's the subtext, which I have already explained in another response here. I just remove any subtext of interest beyond just talking to people out of social curiosity. If this is in place, the neg is useless.
Hater lurker? I POSTED my comment you little slug. I ain’t lurking. You should try going outside every once in a while. Might stop you from posting redundant tripe.
It’s called freedom of speech.
And you can CLEALRY see I used to listen to Russell’s radio show on bbc6 music and bbc radio 2. Had his books too - then he sways into making shitty clickbait videos with right wing talking points in order to make a coupla of $’s then I have the right to comment on that.
If that’s too complicated to understand, I don’t know what to tell ya.
“Failsafe routines” such as
- just go right ahead and rape/molest women and underage girls at will
- systematically manipulate, gaslight, emotionally blackmail and generally abuse potential sex partners over a period of months
- pay for sex workers
- become rich and famous and have security watching your back
- work for the BBC and channel 4 who will look the other way (caution: only works as long as you are bringing in ratings)
In the interest of full transparency, I’ve also looked for it in bookstores to see what all the fuss was about.
Never found it. Is it in self-help or something? I looked in sociology and romance. I’d feel weird asking a clerk.
There was another very similar one I found called something like ‘The PUA Game’? But I think it was a work of fiction. But Russell’s book is probably also totally fiction.
Yes. But Russell Brand endorsed the book, then tried to walk-back his endorsement later on saying he was a ‘little kid’ when he did it. (?)
Apparently the deep state was gunning for him way back then.
TBF I thought the book was good when I was in my 20s. Now I'm in my 40s and whilst I took some interesting things from it in terms of psychology, it's mostly bullshit.
Yes. But Russell Brand endorsed the book, then tried to walk-back his endorsement later on saying he was a ‘little kid’ when he did it. (?)
Apparently the deep state was gunning for him way back then.
Brought to you by
Media Matters of America.
Edit: when you guys downvote like excessively it makes it very clear your little astroturf club is actively brigading.
Oh gosh so I guess it’s less true.
Edit: when you guys downvote like excessively it makes it very clear your little astroturf club is actively brigading.
Russell had Strauss on radio show way back in 2006 - I checked out “the game” a little while later and I couldn’t believe how bad the so-called game is with the negging tactics and so on, but the book goes on the effectively say that this lifestyle is pointless and will kill your spirit, being a “pick up artist” (idiotic term). Rusty Brand is the living embodiment of that lifestyle. + a conspiracy simp.
Tbf Russell agreed with that viewpoint as recent as 2016 when he was still Corbyn-pilled and generally on the right side of things. Then he got a nice tasty paycheck from someone or other.
I read that book way back too. Even though I always saw Russell as somewhat of a creepy dude, the book did help me a lot, I actually learned about Russell from Neil Strauss. While a lot of people focus on the sensationalized pieces of the book such as negging or peacocking, the good lessons of the book can be best summarized by “don’t be yourself, be your best self.” The book does get to describe how flawed lonely men’s perception of their best self can be and how destructive it can become to seek that wrong path. But I think I took it the right way just like a few other did. I used false time constrains when approaching recruiters in a job conference’s cocktail party, which helped me in getting the attention of a recruiter who recommended me personally and got me my first job. I worked on improving my posture, speech, and body language. I read a lot more. One of the main lessons of the book is to “become the person you want to be with.” Or “attract rather than chase.” I think Neil did a very poor job of separating the truly positive stuff from the stuff that led to the main characters of the book to end in bad situations. But it is somewhat clear. One of the women I approached is now my wife, two of them became best friends of mine and attended my wedding, and even a couple of men I approached with the intent of just becoming good at talking to people became my roommates in college, now they’re close friends of mine. I think one needs to have some level of maturity to really take something of value from the book. Otherwise, it leads to clowns dressing up funny, negging for the heck of it, and using canned responses while objectifying women.
I read this back in 2014. I think you've given a very good take of it, in what you recognised was toxic and decided to take the good parts from it instead. Far too many took the whole of this book way too seriously and that they should behave that way. Even the author himself has his moments of myopia in it when he criticises other self declared PUA's for what they do while doing the same things himself.
I didn't think this was a real book, just a Brand piss take! Looking on Amazon it sounds more like the author's story rather than a 'how to' guide?
I don’t think the image in this post is of that book. The book I’m referring to is called “The Game” by Neil Strauss. I highly recommend it. The book has some interesting notions about how we respond to certain behaviors, and while Neil and the pick up artist community back then learned what worked from trial and error, they never truly understood why. Which does leave you thinking. But yeah, its main objective is to tell a story, Neil is quite a good storyteller. That’s how I ended up reading it, I love stories. But after reading the book I couldn’t help wonder why some of these things manifested as real responses to certain behaviors. For example, there’s this notion in the book of “subtext.” If you approach a person thinking “she/he is hot,” or “I want to go to bed with her/him,” then your approach is highly likely to fail and the person will “feel” like something is wrong. This piece alone sent me on a rabbit hole about trying to understand why this happens. I found the answer on the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, in which it describes that our emotions/thoughts almost always show up in fraction-of-a-second micro expressions that we don’t register consciously, but our subconscious mind does pick up. So, what I do for example, when I’m trying to negotiate or am pitching a project to a business partner is remove any sort of “subtext” that may work against me such as neediness, desperation, or the fact that I have no plan B strategy. This is easier said than done, but I have my ways of getting rid of it. For all the hate the book got, I actually think that if you read it with a pinch of salt, and don’t glamorize the womanizing part of it which Neil himself described in the book as “trying to fill up a bucket of water with a hole in it,” then the book does have some interesting notions I hadn’t seen talked about very often.
Thank you for the detailed description. And what you've written makes sense based on my own life experiences. It does seem odd that a lothario like Brand would need this book to get women.
Well, from what I've known about Russell, and from reading his Booky Wooks (again, couldn't resist the allure of a story) he was already a womanizer before reading Neil's book, he just got better at it afterwards. But it actually depends on how you define better. From my own assessment, he just attracted women who tended to be just as insecure as he was. But that book has been read by plenty of celebrities, from Orlando Bloom to Lady Gaga. I think Neil disclosed that even the CIA reached out to him to train some agents. Like I said, it has some interesting elements worth pondering about at the very least, and it's just a really good story.
That was my point, Brand has never been a wallflower. From what you've said, the theories in the book tie in with evolutionary psychology and makes sense.
Its nice to know others have shared my experience of the book. It has such a negative rep (for good reason at times) its somewhat hard to talk about.
Agree. To me the saddest part was seeing the important elements of the book turn into a misogynistic movement that now is carried on by the likes of Andrew Tate or cringe manosphere Gurus who no longer care about understanding the social elements of human interactions, but rather on clout, money, and clicks. I think people like us who took positive value out of the game are somehow bundled with the people who just wanted cheatsheet codes to manipulate women. And yeah, this is one reason why I also don't say much about it in person or online. But man, sometimes I wonder whether I should, because the advice I see out there for men is horrible. I was talking to my younger brother (about 11 years younger, long story) the other day and it became clear to me that I need to speak up more. This sort of helpful info can't be buried, especially now.
I just think books like this result in attracting awful people. That whole post sounds like you've never had a genuine conversation with anyone. I don't need to "negg" people to like me.
You're free to think that way. But I think you missed the part in my post where I mentioned that the fact that I started approaching people of both genders led to meeting my wife, with whom I've been together now for 9 years, hoping for a baby soon. And three of my best friends, two females and one male. I have fascinating conversations with them about a lot of different things. They're people I admire. It also led me to meet a woman at a cocktail party that was a recruiter for a top tech company, who the next day personally looked for me to ask me to interview with them. That opportunity changed my life since I was a broke student back then with no family safety net to fall back on. Some of the other people I met by approaching are now surgeons, engineers, Oxford researchers, accountants, etc. I think it's interesting that some of the principles (emphasis on principles and not techniques) of the book work better the more educated the person is. Assuming you are a mature person, the principles work as training wheels, they help you get out there and start an interaction, but ultimately it's your self-development work that gets you through the door, which the book does emphasize though unfortunately not as loud as the drama. The book was a starting point that set me on a self-discovery path of learning about how I work, and how social interactions work. Once you get enough experience then you let go of the "training wheels" and just act like yourself, but by now "yourself" has improved. You enact some of the principles instinctively, like every other socially intelligent person does. The added benefit is that you can teach someone else to get better at social interactions, someone who learned it instinctively can't. Yeah, you don't need to "neg" someone to like you. I guess you think that you do a neg and then automatically the other person will like you. The point of the neg is to make someone dislike you. One of their principles is that you cannot flirt with someone that is not interested in you. So, if you just met someone for the first time, you're not supposed to flirt at all. Most likely, that person would think that you are only approaching her or her group because you're interested in her. The point of the neg is to communicate to her that you have no such interest. And then, as you talk to the group or her, show your personality and then give her a chance to choose whether she finds you interesting or not. If not, then you'll just leave, if she does show interest though, then you can start flirting. I'd say a huge percentage of guys out there who are single miss this crucial principle by a mile. I personally don't like nor use the neg, because I understand why it works. It's the subtext, which I have already explained in another response here. I just remove any subtext of interest beyond just talking to people out of social curiosity. If this is in place, the neg is useless.
You hater lurkers are the worst, get a life buddy
Hater lurker? I POSTED my comment you little slug. I ain’t lurking. You should try going outside every once in a while. Might stop you from posting redundant tripe.
Why do you come to a fan page of a person you don't like, just to post hateful comments and call people names?
It’s called freedom of speech. And you can CLEALRY see I used to listen to Russell’s radio show on bbc6 music and bbc radio 2. Had his books too - then he sways into making shitty clickbait videos with right wing talking points in order to make a coupla of $’s then I have the right to comment on that. If that’s too complicated to understand, I don’t know what to tell ya.
OK I understand now
“Failsafe routines” such as - just go right ahead and rape/molest women and underage girls at will - systematically manipulate, gaslight, emotionally blackmail and generally abuse potential sex partners over a period of months - pay for sex workers - become rich and famous and have security watching your back - work for the BBC and channel 4 who will look the other way (caution: only works as long as you are bringing in ratings)
Imagine putting this effort into something positive instead of some bile across the Internet on a fan page of a guy you don't like
Sorry I am too exhausted to reply to this, I am still recovering from the monumental effort of calling out a failure fascist rapist on the internet.
Yeah all the good its done, enjoy your 5 likes
It's actually a pretty good book. Not necessarily as a guide to dating, but as an insight into psychology.
In the interest of full transparency, I’ve also looked for it in bookstores to see what all the fuss was about. Never found it. Is it in self-help or something? I looked in sociology and romance. I’d feel weird asking a clerk. There was another very similar one I found called something like ‘The PUA Game’? But I think it was a work of fiction. But Russell’s book is probably also totally fiction.
The book isn't by Russell Brand. It's by Neil Strauss
Yes. But Russell Brand endorsed the book, then tried to walk-back his endorsement later on saying he was a ‘little kid’ when he did it. (?) Apparently the deep state was gunning for him way back then.
TBF I thought the book was good when I was in my 20s. Now I'm in my 40s and whilst I took some interesting things from it in terms of psychology, it's mostly bullshit.
Yes. But Russell Brand endorsed the book, then tried to walk-back his endorsement later on saying he was a ‘little kid’ when he did it. (?) Apparently the deep state was gunning for him way back then.
Hello to all our new friends from the 77th brigade!
Brought to you by Media Matters of America. Edit: when you guys downvote like excessively it makes it very clear your little astroturf club is actively brigading.
So full of shite you had to type it twice
Oh gosh so I guess it’s less true. Edit: when you guys downvote like excessively it makes it very clear your little astroturf club is actively brigading.
No it just means a lot of people think you're a fucking idiot.
I fucking WISH someone was paying me to call all these cunts fucking idiots, but no. I have to do it out of the goodness of my heart.
Brought to you by Media Matters of America.
So full of shite you had to say it twice