Joined: Apr 2011
RE: Marks review of blueprint decoded
Here's a random excerpt, just to give you an idea. Some DVD's were worse than these. Some were better:
- "At RSD we make up funny terms to make things that intimidate most guys become funny, that and were' fucking ridiculous." If by ridiculous you mean a cult, I agree entirely.
- Alliances: Super nerd term for social proof. Social proof helps get you in state.
- Competencies: "Have you ever seen a guy out at a club who has a guitar with him?" Uhh... no. "Ever see a guy doing magic in a club?" Uhh... Mystery? "What about the bartender." OK, that makes more sense. Basically, girls like skills. Like bo staff and hacking skills. Dude, if Napoleon Dynamite can figure this out, I don't think we need a 19-hour seminar for it.
- A bizarre "guru/student symbiotic relationship," Tyler needs students to validate him. Pick up lines, almost a million dollars of camera equipment, back to the "Hi" opener as if it's brilliant.... wait what were we talking about again?
- "MAKE OUT, MAKE OUT, MAKE OUT, MAKE OUT, MAKE OUT!" The infamous line. "Clearly I had the best skill-set in the company because I went out like 1,000 nights in a row." I've heard from multiple ProHo guys that Tyler always sucked and that Stephen Nash was the best guy in ProHo besides Mystery.
- RSD Bootcamp plug #3284123. Sigh...
- PUA instructors always say this: "It's so weird, I always do so well in front of my students, but then by myself I can't do it anymore." Tyler calls this "incredibly common." Maybe I'm unique, but so NOT true at all. In fact, completely opposite. I've coached for over a year now and when I'm out with students I do far far worse than I do when I'm just out having fun. I loathe doing demo sets. When I'm out having fun I fucking kill it. Having students around just makes me way too outcome dependent.
- Two guys fighting over the same girl will tool each other out and neither will get her. True.
- This whole "roles" section is convoluted and really over-thought and over-analyzed. I'm constantly thinking of counter-examples to the shit he's saying.
- RSDNation Plug. At least we have a different plug this time. Tyler follows this with a painful re-enactment of Jamie Foxx owning this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_L-gbpKZpo
- Teaching programs allowed Tyler to become "normal"... That statement is so frightening, I don't even know what to say.
- You don't have to identify yourself as your role, you don't have to derive validation from your roles. Again, I think this shit is all better explained through identity through validation.
- Core Confidence: basically developing constant state. People who have the core confidence to create their own style, roles and alliances, are the people who are constantly in state. Ramblings about how people are sleep-walking through life and meditation. Core confidence means not reacting. No explanation of how to actually get core confidence.
- Here's our definition: Core confidence is an unshakable knowledge of who you are and what you're entitled to. You identify yourself as an individual that cannot be categorized. You know what you've been through in life and trust yourself to get by any situation no matter what. You value your own opinion of yourself more than others and you value yourself by your own criteria. You know that you offer real value to people, if they don't see it, it's their loss. OK. That works. That's great actually...
- Building core confidence through forced self-reliance. Tim built his core confidence by being forced to travel to new cities and countries where he knew nobody and doing it repeatedly.
- There's no such thing as "Perfect Core confidence" it's an ideal, it's just something we always get closer to and never reach. Agreed. Important concept actually.
- "Whoever has the most dominant sense of reality will tend to impose that sense of reality onto those around them." In other words, whoever has the strongest beliefs or core confidence, the more imposing you'll be.
- More RSD Bootcamps, more "popular kid in school" examples. Peer pressure = dominant reality winning out. Tyler uses the example of a "popular kid" smoking a joint at school and a lesser popular kid taking part. I would argue that the less popular kid could still know that it's wrong and he shouldn't smoke it, but he's doing it for validation. Again, I think validation trumps and explains at least half of these concepts that he's been going on for like five hours about.
- Example of dominant realities in attractive women and men. I think this is all better explained as sub-communication. "Imposing reality" seems a bit inaccurate as no one is actually changing anyone's belief about reality. One will simply sub-communicate more value and core confidence than the other. This is done through calibration.
- Tyler breaks down indirect vs. direct approaching, the pro's and con's of each. Tyler says that it's best to keep things as simple as possible to start out. I agree to an extent. He demonstrates more openers and styles, progressively getting weirder. I think his point here is whether indirect or direct, don't half-ass anything. Commit to the set.
- The only distinction between a pick up coach and you is that they've gone out 10 times as much as you and have male groupies. God, so true.
All in all, a wholly mediocre DVD. His definition of core confidence was good, but most of the rest of the disk seemed to meander and the explanations were very convoluted. I feel like a broken record at this point, but I feel like speaking of value and identity in terms of where one derives validation cuts through 2/3 of this crap and can explain the same stuff just as well in just 3-4 hours. Oh well...
- More about reactiveness. In each set, who is screening and who is trying to impress? This can be subtle. There's no "tactic" for this. He then gives an example of how acting unreactive is actually reactive. WELL THEN WHY ARE YOU TELLING GUYS TO BE UNREACTIVE??? Again... I'd argue that it's who is seeking validation from the other. Who is seeking validation and who is giving it?
- Who is more emotionally affected is another sign of who is more reactive. OK. So how many times have you met someone who "unreactive" overtly, but inside they're emotionally affected a lot? I've met tons. The quiet, shy type. Counter example #18 to "be unreactive." Unreactivity is an awful concept. DON'T SEEK EXTERNAL VALIDATION.
- Who's concept of "what's cool" is changing? Another awful metric. I'd argue that attraction actually comes by FITTING someone's concept of "what's cool." For instance, I was in set last night with a really cute blonde. She was your typical career-driven mid-20's girl. I work from home, I travel a lot and party all time. I'm pretty happy-go-lucky. We both respected each other's lifestyle choices but neither one of us really appealed to the other and neither one of our concepts of "what's cool" was affected.
- Tyler explains to us how to find "the cool people" in the club. Have you ever considered that there's no objective definition of "cool?" As soon as you label somebody "cool" you're immediately implying valuing them over others, and guess what? You're reacting!
- Self-amusement is one of the most attractive traits. True.
- "Being the party." I HATE THIS PHRASE!
- Growing up with tons of stimulation (video games, 100 channels of TV), our generation has lost the ability to self-amuse. Great point.
- Unreactive doesn't mean being unexpressive or unresponsive. Being unreactive doesn't mean being Clint Eastwood. Eastwood actually got mad pussy.
- Being unreactive means "acting through your own intentions." Why didn't you just talk about intentions from the start?
- Who is trying to get value from another person or are you being yourself. My translation: are you looking for validation or are you self-validated. Oh my God, this DVD is so frustrating. Talk about an hour's worth of material being explanable in about 10 minutes.
- Ramblings: Tyler gained a bunch of weight. Tyler is losing weight. Tyler went to Italy. Eye contact is crucial. The "cycle of congruence tests." Girls don't test Brad Pitt. All of this has something to do with being "rooted in reality." I'm playing chess now. The computer is winning.
- Have the most unwavering certainty, the least emotional reaction to conflicting views, then you will have the most dominant reality. Apparently this is "all we need to know." So what are the next 11 DVD's for?
- "Whatever shortcoming you have, whether or not it's a big deal is entirely up to you." WOW! Where did that come from? Great piece of advice. Say what you want about Tyler, but he shits out some real gems of advice every now and then.
- Speaking of shit, Tyler draws four green turds surrounding a blue boat on his board. This represents a girl visiting my reality.
- The strength of your reality is like a muscle. The strength of your reality grows every year if you're living in the right way. He summarizes this by basically meaning your core confidence continues to grow.
- My girlfriend is now watching with me.
- Tyler says that the strength of your reality influences other people to think and act the way that you expect them to. My girlfriend thinks this is retarded. As do I. I'd even argue that it's borderline malicious.
- My girlfriend finds nothing attractive about Tyler, she says he seems angry at women. She says he gives her the "heebie jeebies." LOL.
I apologize for mocking so much this DVD, but I'm sorry. He just spent 70 minutes explaining "being unreactive" and "having a strong reality," two things that could easily be explained in other terms within 10-15 minutes (again, through where we seek validation and who we seek it from). My girlfriend watched the last 15 minutes out of curiosity. She commented, "It seems like he's just making simple things a lot more complicated and then passing it off as new theories and ideas. I think he cares about guys thinking he's smart more than actually cares about meeting women." So spot on, my jaw dropped. Women's intuition?
Models - A Comprehensive Guide to Attracting Women
G3 Program - Step-by-step interactive coaching program -- takes you from A-to-Z with women.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2011 01:23 PM by Mark.)