~ archived since 2018 ~

The Daygame Uncertainty Principle

krauserpua
March 12, 2017

I recently found out that at its highest levels, mathematics is an experimental science. How very very odd! Now, while I was always top of my class in maths at school, I haven’t done any since I was sixteen and thus I’m in no position of authority to speak. I’m just telling you what I heard. From a man in the pub. Nonetheless, it got me thinking. I’d assumed mathematics is the most analytic and most precise of all knowledge systems. I’d thought it was a closed system, tautologically true. I’d already heard Stephen Hawking waffle on about physics as being quite open-ended and exploratory which had come as a surprise at the time [1] [2] [3]. So I start thinking.

Something like this

Much of our male attempt to poke our dicks into pretty females comes down to imposing order and control onto a messy world. Within the daygame community that can express itself in a daygame model, mapping the stages of an ideal type interaction. A model allows someone with little experience to form an expectation and to narrow his seemingly infinite potential choices of action down to a small set that tend to lead in the right direction. A rough model is like a rough map, pencil on the back of a napkin. A detailed model can be more like a periodic table.

.
Unfortunately, the map is not the territory. It always involves high levels of abstraction and the removal of the specifics of time and place. There will never be a daygame model that perfectly describes and patterns the reality of daygame. We just have to do our best. Anyone watching a rank beginner will soon see that a half-decent model is far more effective than nothing at all.

.
So far, so meh. Let’s fly on our intellectual wings, up and away into a higher tier of mindwank. Let’s ask ourselves this question: Do we ever really know what’s happening in a daygame set?

  • Do you ever really know if a girl fancies you?
  • Do you ever really know what your odds of fucking her are?
  • Assuming you didn’t fuck her, can you ever figure out why she didn’t put out?

Lets say a girl appears to IOI you so you open. Sometimes you’ll get the “confirmation” of the IOI because she immediately laughs and hooks, as if your opener was actually the second sentence in the set (her IOI was the inaudible first). But other times she acts like she hadn’t just IOId you. So, was it really an IOI?

Well, was it????

How could you possibly know one way or the other? Even if you explicitly ask her and she denies it, it doesn’t mean it ain’t so.

.
Lets say you’re out gutter gaming and a girl seems to hook well, her eyes wide. You squeeze her hand and she squeezes back. You suggest a drink and she follows you to a bar, but at the last moment refuses to enter.
“I have a boyfriend” she says. “I shouldn’t. Something might happen.”
“Yes, I may kiss you” you reply, doubling down on the r-selection.
“Yes, you may. I can’t.” Then she leaves.

.
How close were you to fucking her? Give it a percentage and then consider a different scenario…..

“I think this one might be 50/50”

You’re back out gutter gaming and meet a different girl. It’s a fairly uninvolved conversation with low sexual energy but she’s smiling, chatting and agrees to a drink. You sit with a beer each as she tells you she’s on a weekend trip from St Petersburg, that she works as a graphic designer, and isn’t it exciting to be here after you only just met. Midway through the first drink you are playing with her hair and you even get a light makeout. You finish two drinks and suggest a walk, which of course finishes at your apartment door. She comes upstairs, telling you she can only stay half an hour. Music on, some making out. She resists when you squeeze her tits but you eventually get her shirt off and a mouthful, but she’s firm about not unzipping her jeans. Then around the half hour mark she puts the shirt back on, swaps Facebooks and disappears unfucked.

.
Now give this set a percentage probability. How close did you come? Which is the nearer near miss?

.
On raw “objective data” the second one is MUCH closer. You kissed her, got her home, and rolled around on the bed. But is that actually closer? What if she’d made a decision early on of “I’ll fool around with this guy a bit but I’m never taking my jeans off”? In that case you were never going to fuck her, and everything that came after her decision was kabuki theatre. In contrast, that first girl may have been thinking “If I kiss him, I’ll fuck him. I’d better not kiss him”. By this formulation, it is the girl’s internal mental state which really determines how close you are to fucking her and a girl who is wavering 50/50 at this “if I kiss, I fuck” stage is arguably a nearer miss than a girl on your bed determined not to fuck. [4]

.
But there is yet another tier of mindwank above even that.

.
A Russian girl once told me “Nick, you are too logical with daygame. Often even we girls don’t know what we will do or why we do it. Often we do it and then don’t even understand afterwards why we did.” So consider in both these situations the girl’s internal mental state wasn’t necessarily etched in stone. The first girl may have flipped between parallel yes/no states multiple times during the set like Schrodingers’s Cat. The girl with a firm resolution to fool around but not fuck may have suddenly changed her mind to either fuck, or perhaps not even begin fooling around.

.
Given this, it helps to relax our hold on the dream of making daygame a precise science and to instead embrace the chaos of the world. Whenever humans are involved you can rarely say “this definitely happened” or “this is why.” The best you can do is assign probabilities, based on adding your experience to that accumulated by the community, to know what tends to happen when certain outward behaviours seem to manifest, based upon your reasonably decent calibration.

.
But you’ll never actually know. And even if you fuck the girl, you can’t be sure if it because of or in spite of your game [5]

If you thought this was uncertain, you should consider resolving it by making certain to buy my book, which is certainly great.

[1] Although perhaps this is nonsense as equally uninformed as his recent blabbing on about how we need to one-world globalist government to constrain “aggression”.
[2] And he claims women are “a complete mystery
[3] And he’s a spazz
[4] Most intermediate daygamers who’ve toyed with heavy r-selection will have experienced “sex on the street” sets where you talk to a girl for five minutes and she leaves without even giving a number, but you were eye-fucking each other so hard you know she was fantasising about your dick. What does that count as?
[5] Though you will definitely know you don’t really care because you fucked her anyway and that’s what really counts.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog Krauser PUA.

Krauser PUA archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title The Daygame Uncertainty Principle
Author krauserpua
Date March 12, 2017 9:40 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Blog Krauser PUA
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/Krauser-PUA/the-daygame-uncertaintyprinciple.27258
https://theredarchive.com/blog/27258
Original Link https://krauserpua.com/2017/03/12/the-daygame-uncertainty-principle/
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter