Dallas PUA

The struggle of demonstrating higher value without bragging is hard, but understanding what value to show is even harder. Mystery taught us what values attract women and they are.

1. Preselection
2. Leader of Men
3. Protector of Love ones
4. Emotional stability

But my dilemma is what is value and how do we rank one value higher than another value. This may sound complicated, but I'll try my best to simplify it. I tried to linearize the paradox of value, and struggled with my derivatives but derived this.

V=C(e^(S x k)) ......{if S=0 then V=0

V= value, C= capacity of value to produce product,
S= (variable) Social Emancipation of value, k= constant (other factors)

or for our purposes this simpler formula
Value= (capacity of value)x(Social emancipation)
V=C x S
In laidman's terms it means that value is only worth on how much people accept it and not by its ability to produce something. For example, gold is very valuable right, but only valuable because we believe it is.

What if we were starving and hungrey, would a lump of bread have more value than a lump of gold? In this instant the value of bread exponentially increased and value of gold decreased. This change happened because we believed that we were starving and we accepted that bread is more valuable than gold. So if there was no emancipation (acceptance) of value than it will have no value. So if no one thought it was valuable than it will lose value? Simple right.

In terms of pickup C= to mystery's four values of attraction, S= the amount that the value is accepted and believed. k= its limitation or benefit of the survival and reproduction of the value, and emotional appeal.

In conclusion, when constructing DHV routines try to incorporate that formula V=C x S or the other one. Later on I'll post something about the identity of value.

Um...you lost me at "The struggle"

Hmm... I dont know if looking at pick up as a math problem is healthy or benificial.

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying. I think your notion of value is somewhat messed up, in the sense that there is no objective value that can be separated from the person doing the valuation. Value is person and context dependent. Value is subjective.

Some women may find sexual skill more important than physical looks, some may not. Some women may find ability to cook more important than ability to dress well, some may not. So the question of trying to rank values in some absolute sense is ill-posed, which your bread / gold example highlighted very well.

But even though values are subjective, there are definitely trends. Bad breath is unattractive. Height is attractive. Crooked and missing teeth is unattractive. Good grooming is attractive.

Mystery's attraction switches are generally agreed to be major values in the eyes of women. There are other attraction switches too, which Mystery feels are less important. But that's just his opinion.

cruxnexus wrote:I tried to linearize the paradox of value, and struggled with my derivatives but derived this.

V=C(e^(S x k)) ......{if S=0 then V=0

V= value, C= capacity of value to produce product,
S= (variable) Social Emancipation of value, k= constant (other factors)

or for our purposes this simpler formula
Value= (capacity of value)x(Social emancipation)
V=C x S
In laidman's terms it means that value is only worth on how much people accept it and not by its ability to produce something.

Close, but not quite. The formula for value is expressed as:

dv/dt = 1/Sqrt(2pi)* Int|(0-infinity) 1/2 f(x-ct)dv -f(x^e-2ct)dv +k^3

Where:
t = Time spent with the girl
c = a constant
pi = A delicious pastry
k^3 = a group that hates black people
and x = something pirates use to mark buried treasure.

Westfall

Westfall wrote:

cruxnexus wrote:I tried to linearize the paradox of value, and struggled with my derivatives but derived this.

V=C(e^(S x k)) ......{if S=0 then V=0

V= value, C= capacity of value to produce product,
S= (variable) Social Emancipation of value, k= constant (other factors)

or for our purposes this simpler formula
Value= (capacity of value)x(Social emancipation)
V=C x S
In laidman's terms it means that value is only worth on how much people accept it and not by its ability to produce something.

Close, but not quite. The formula for value is expressed as:

dv/dt = 1/Sqrt(2pi)* Int|(0-infinity) 1/2 f(x-ct)dv -f(x^e-2ct)dv +k^3

Where:
t = Time spent with the girl
c = a constant
pi = A delicious pastry
k^3 = a group that hates black people
and x = markets the spot.

Westfall

Touche, salesman.

Thaddeus wrote:Hmm... I dont know if looking at pick up as a math problem is healthy or benificial.

Perhaps its not good to look at pickup as math, and maybe its not good to look at pickup well as pickup. But more as social dynamics. Idk, but I just try to organize all my techniques and systemize it for faster execution. Looking at it as a formula is just another way to view it in a different perspective.

Perception is reality.

Westfall wrote:
Close, but not quite. The formula for value is expressed as:

dv/dt = 1/Sqrt(2pi)* Int|(0-infinity) 1/2 f(x-ct)dv -f(x^e-2ct)dv +k^3

Where:
t = Time spent with the girl
c = a constant
pi = A delicious pastry
k^3 = a group that hates black people
and x = something pirates us to mark buried treasure.

Westfall

BHWHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh god. seriously. *tear*

Hey, whatever helps him to understand the game better.

cruxnexus wrote:Perhaps its not good to look at pickup as math, and maybe its not good to look at pickup well as pickup. But more as social dynamics. Idk, but I just try to organize all my techniques and systemize it for faster execution. Looking at it as a formula is just another way to view it in a different perspective.

If you are struggling with philosophical problems, putting it in mathematical terms is not going to help. You need to clarify (at least in your own head) what the concepts mean first. If you are confused about what value is, putting symbols around it will not clarify anything.

Mathematicians take great care to make sure their terms are well defined. Without well-defined terms it's not math. It's more like shorthand. Shorthand will not add any "perspective", it can only make it more confusing.

translation of post:

value is the way you and others perceive it

Crux you are a very thoughtful analytical guy, and seem to really want to give something to the community. I like that, however I think your knowledge would be much better used somehow else