Originally attributed to Tom Torero, this has become a tenet of Daygame. Combined with the discussion on Empathy, these two principles are responsible for much of a Daygamer’s improvement over time.
I was always interpreting this advice at the second level of thinking (“I know, that you know, that I know”), i.e., the Player needs to observe his feelings, in response to the girl’s reaction, to his approach → then all Inner Game issues are magically revealed.
However, after discussions with a fellow Daygamer, it came to my understanding that there are multiple ways that this tenet can be interpreted. If done wrong, it actually leads to regression than to improvement.
Levels of thinking
This discussion has to begin with a Game Theory topic, explaining the depth of analysis in head-to-head adversarial games.
This concept has been immortalised in this scene from the old Zorro TV Series. It goes as follows:
- The villain has two cups, one with wine and one with poison.
- He offers Zorro a cup, which he has the option to swap.
- Then they both drink, and the person who got the poison dies.
It feels like pure chance, right? At the end of the day, Zorro has 50-50 chance of drinking the poison.
This would be true assuming the participants had no intelligence or motives. What really happens is the following: let us describe it from the person who assigns the cups originally (i.e., the villain):
- Villain wants Zorro to die → gives him the poison (Level 0)
- Villain knows that Zorro knows his motives. He assumes Zorro will swap → gives himself the poison (Level 1)
- Villain knows that Zorro knows he will think at Level 1. Assumes Zorro won’t swap to outplay him → gives Zorro the poison (Level 2)
In short, Zorro swaps at Levels with odd parity and doesn’t swap at Levels with even parity.
Therefore, from Villain’s point of view: at step 2N, the Villain gives Zorro the poison, who assumes that he won’t swap. At step 2N+1, he will give himself the poison, assuming Zorro would swap.
From Zorro’s point of view: if he matches the parity of the Villain’s level of thinking (odd to odd, or even to even), then the Villain gets the poison → Zorro wins
As you can see, what started as a 50-50 chance has now reduced to a guessing game. Of course, there are infinite ways that both Zorro and Villain can win, justifying the probability, but thinking probabilistically is the mistake. Thinking Empathetically decides who wins and who loses instead.
Levels of Thinking and Game
Big discussion about something seemingly unrelated to Game, right? The principles of LDM dictate that seduction is cooperative (win-win), rather than adversarial.
Wrong, dear friend, because the levels of thinking don’t apply to Player vs Girl, they apply to how Player gets feedback and how he discusses that feedback with peers.
The Daygame approach
Level Zero: What is
This is the basic and malicious judgment level. I am including it only because it is so prominent. It will be for the mental benefit of the Player to learn to catch it quickly and disqualify the person directing the conversation there.
Level Zero is on holistic value:
- Did the girl reject you → you must suck.
- Did you got a meaningless number through absurd flash Game → you are awesome (the number matters)
At its most deceptive, this is how people judge Game based on outcome, not on intent. Is the girl receptive? That must mean good Game.
Sadly, this is the signal that most people react to. However,… we are here to get laid, so fuck the world. Let others think like this, you go on and ignore them.
Level 1: Why is that
Here is where analysis begins. When you get rejected, it is not because you suck as a whole. It is because some factors of you made you unattractive to her. For example, your vibe was off, your fashion was off, or there was value mismatch between you two.
By isolating factors, the analysis becomes more mechanistic and impersonal, rather than personal. Good, this is the first step towards improvement, but over-reliance here can cause problems.
The thinking itself is analytic vs holistic, however it is not synthetic. Sadly, at extremes, this is prone to fatalism. Browse the average online forum, and people reduce seduction to “height”, or “genetics”, or “social circle”. You get the picture.
Level 2: The factors behind the “why”
Here is where it gets interesting. It is not about the factors working independently, but it is about how the pieces interact with each other in a complete model.
It is how your mentality induces your behaviour that the girl interacts based on her prior body language and value. It is also a guideline of possible girl outcomes vs your prior assumptions and personality intricacies.
This is where failure becomes admissible, because you want failure itself as a filtering mechanism. Not all failures are created equally, and how you manage some failures affects your long-term vibe.
This level is the ideal for feedback in Seduction.
Level 3 and beyond: Calibration
Level 3 and above can be grouped together as Calibration and micro-Calibration. It can be about specific cultural nuances or well-studied body language and personality reading.
You will develop it naturally with Game exposure, but it shouldn’t matter that much when analysing feedback. This is a long-term project that naturally will fall into place with experience.
Every piece at its place
Here is where we connect Game Theory with Seduction even further.
Did you remember the observation that Zorro can win or lose the Game depending on his level of thinking relative to his opponent? The same is true here. Try to analyze a piece of feedback, for example, a Level 3 minute costume at a Level 1 spot… and you get disaster.
The point is that as you go deeper, higher structures are revealed to you, but this should not happen at the expense of the foundations. I am not advocating for intellectual elitism, but I am advocating for a correct level of analysis.
Full Circle
Therefore, we are ready to close the loop on the “Girl is your Mirror” argument.
At Level Zero, this is advice about how this girl reacted. It edges toward monomania and will actually hinder your progress rather than assist it.
At Level One, this is general feedback over big sample sizes. It is averagely useful at understanding isolated changes over long sessions. For example, the new jacket yielded a small spike in results in 20 sets. Maybe this is a good change to adopt.
At Level Two is where the advice shines. As I stated earlier, it translates to: what does her reaction induce in me? If you get overly anxious when she doesn’t encourage your approach immediately, the point is your anxiety, not her reaction. It revealed your Inner Game gap.
The True Value of Game
That final statement is where Daygame will aid your life the most. Emotional progress and stability, i.e., what we call Inner Game, can make a night-and-day difference in the average person’s life.
Take a broken office dweller and give him a superbabe. Or give him a Lambo. Give him both for fuck’s sake… After the emotional spike wears off… you will find the same broken man. Life’s achievements should come at the end of a bedrock of ability. Unearned riches are more adversarial in the long run.
Now take the same man and teach him Game and Independence. He will quit his job and be self-sufficient with half of his current needs. That is the point: Happiness is an Inner Game equation as much as it is induced by the external reality.
