How does a Daygame stop work after we free ourselves from the model? It is long known in the community that the LDM is training wheels and eventually everyone freestyles. Hook point is not reached when she asks a question; investment doesn’t need to be long. In my sets, I mostly go by feeling, the building blocks simplify to:
- Attraction
- Comfort
- Running down the clock
That is it. That is the simplified version. For example, my mind might go “I have been teasing for a while now, we need some comfort” or “this is getting too boring now, throw a spike”. The actual goal of the set is to impose the seduction frame (social and sexual attraction), and what is happening is “real” (comfort). When the girl accepts it (this can be 2 or 10 minutes), it is time to ask for the number or proceed with an idate.
The intro above showcases how hard it is to explain advanced daygame. There can only be guiding principles that are applied based on the player’s calibration. In this essay, we will focus on one such case – how to structure the conversation itself.
Conversational topics
There is a fundamental skill that is equally important both in the LDM and in the freestyle paradigm. It is the basis of how we conduct conversations in set. I believe that the conversation should be personal. That’s it. It is about you and the girl; everything else revolves around that. For example, that river over there is not calming because “it reminds you of a painting in a museum”; instead, it is because “you and she are getting the feeling you are in Amsterdam canals”. Her hobby of reading books or watching TV is not about the hobby; it is about what it says about her character. The meaning behind the actions.
That is the big reveal. Keep the conversation about you and her. At the date, you can diverge into DHV stories, but focus on analyzing the social context and the feelings from these stories.
The concept itself is no secret in the Daygame community. John Bodi was on this, calling it digital vs analog communication. Forget abstract ideas. Stop explaining choices on rational decision-making. Stop analyzing concepts on logic. Conversation, from street stop to date to lay, should always be emotional and colorful. And all topics become even more emotional and colorful when it’s about you, her, and your relationship.
Even Krauser’s intellectual mastery is more about the security feeling the girl gets about your knowledge and worldview (frame) rather than your actual world. Case in point, actual testimonial from a girl, “I have no clue what you are saying, but I love hearing you talk”. Let us now then make a case for this colorful, personal, and emotional talk.
The Background
In the West, especially people in STEM, we are trained to listen to logic rather than emotion. Actually, the whole of Modernity pushes for this because of our materialistic focus.
Aside: Materialism is a philosophical term. It is the focus on objects as the only source of truth. For example, Science is materialistic because all scientific truth has to be testable empirically and repeatably.
In reality, without emotions, there is no decision-making. There is a famous example about a person with damage in the vm-PFC (emotional center in the brain), who couldn’t make any decisions [Brain – David Eagleman]. She couldn’t make decisions, because no decision can be made fully on logic. Emotion guides logic. The vm-PFC itself is theorised to work by making simulations of potential futures and interpreting outcomes based on emotional responses [The Master and his Emissary – Ian McGillChrist].
Information Transmission in Game
Information itself is transmitted both logically and emotionally equally well. To drill the point, let us give an example. Assume the message is “Bears are dangerous”.
One approach – logic – is to throw survival statistics from face-to-face contact with bears. The second approach – emotional – is to paint a picture of a bear chasing your listener in the woods while making growling sounds. The listener will feel the danger and get the message equally well.
Okay, if there is a point for emotional talk, then why don’t we always talk emotionally, even at work? We won’t argue against the benefits of logic; that is proven through Science and Industrialism. But we will argue why it is preferable in Game.
The first argument is about Solipsism, introduced by the one and only Rollo Tomassi. In short, girls never doubt their worldview. If it makes sense in their head, then it is true, regardless of whether it holds in nature. Girls tend not to second-guess either their worldview or their thoughts.
The second argument is that female communication is about relationships and feelings [Practical Female Psychology]. The female brain is just designed to respond to that. There is even a BBC documentary [ BBC Secrets of the Sexes – Ep1] that showcases the phenomenon:
[Excuse the Chinese subs. It is hard to find old documentaries]
Watch until around minute 7
Participants are meant to be transported to the experiment location, but the driver is on the trick. He has a scripted conversation that covers factual and emotional topics. When they arrive, they are asked comprehension questions for the discussion.
Men remember all the facts of the conversation. For example, information about banks, the car, or about London. Women are oblivious to those, but remember all the relationship information: the driver’s kids, his divorce, the gossip. It is actually staggering how deaf women were on the logical and fact-based communication. And also staggering how deaf men were in the relationship and emotional communication.
