I was arguing with a friend of mine about Rob Judge whether he is a natural or not. In my opinion, he is a natural. The only structure he seems to use is the 4 Elements Game.

Not sure I understand the question. Natural is kind of a vague (marketing) term - are you asking whether Rob is a natural in the sense that he was good with women from a young age? According to him, no. Are you asking whether he uses scripts and routines? According to him, no. Are you asking whether he ever used scripts and routines? According to him, yes? Are you asking whether he teaches them now? No. He doesn't really advertise what he does as natural game. Also, this isn't really worth arguing about. I'm a big fan of the 4EG book, but I don't really see the relevance of categorizing it.

http://www.practicalpickup.com/guide-to-...with-women
Read about the "Type II's" in that article.

That describes Rob. That actually describes me fairly well as well.

Sorry for the bad phrasing on my part.

So Rob is socially inteligent and "just" had to overcome his blockages. But my question was whether his game is natural. Jon says No. This is worth discussing since every structure stiffles newbies.

Define "natural game."

If you mean he doesn't sit in his room and think up lines to use, then yeah. (Note: I'm speaking for Rob here because he and I are friends and have been out together many times.)

For the record, I've never really liked the label "natural game" and have always deflected it when people tried to label me with it.

Natural Game = having a good time, not trying to control/manipulate her, because sex is just something that happens.

If you watch Rob you CAN come to the conclusion that he is always trying to control everything because he is always talking and escalating but never relaxing (akward silence!).

Mark: If you mean he doesn't sit in his room and think up lines to use, then yeah.

That hints at a much better distinctiion than natural game vs. mistery. When you go out and try to meet women, you inevitably learn structures. The more experienced you are, the more things you have to repeat. The term natural is not accurate as discussed in Mark's lost article The Myth of Natural Game or something. Instead, you should rather differentiate between people who use magic lines from others and people who use their own lines acquired through experience.

I think the best definition of natural I could think of would be this: When a person, through experience, makes that transition from conscious competence to unconscious competence.

Basically where you reach that point where everything you learned and tried over the years is on auto-pilot and you just kind of let it go.

I think the problem with the term "natural game" is that the people who first used it (TD, Vin) seemed to imply that you have this secret alpha personality, and you needed natural game to bring it out. That's an even bigger load of bull than what mystery peddles. I think Rob, and Mark's philosophy, is that different people struggle with women for different reasons (although too shy, too nice, and too socially off seem to be the big ones), that techniques can be helpful, but not too many, and not too elaborate.

Question for Mark - would you say you ever consciously use a technique at this point? As in, do you ever think "hmm this interaction isn't going the way I want it to, I know what I need to do, xyz technique?"

(04-23-2011 09:41 PM)Mark Wrote:  I think the best definition of natural I could think of would be this: When a person, through experience, makes that transition from conscious competence to unconscious competence.

Basically where you reach that point where everything you learned and tried over the years is on auto-pilot and you just kind of let it go.

Isn't Rob a product of RSD bootcamps hmm. The stuff in his 4 elements book is very similar to Natural Tim Flawless natural. I actually herd he was friends with RSD guys then they kicked him off the RSD forum because he wanted to do his own thing!