Aaron Sleazy - Cold Approach Pretty Much Useless

[Mark]

Well put Jack (minus the shit test part).

[Warped Mindless]

I was reading some articles that Sleazy wrote and what I found interesting is that in one article he wrote a year and a half ago stressed how important cold approaching is.

[Zac]

From what I've read of that guy he makes some good points (some bad ones as well) but he can't seem to take any criticism and spends a lot of time insulting people that disagree with him.

It's kind of funny how he hates on PUA but he is basically a PUA when you look at his site. It's just like a marketing game. If his book was that amazing people would shout it from the roof tops.

[crazyhorse]

I'm going to throw him a bone here .

Basically if you reread his article "why cold approaching is pretty much useless", he states that approaching women indiscriminately is a losing strategy. So that means you either approach women who: 1) seem interested in you or 2) seem interested into meeting other people.

I mean face it, if you are 5f3, and you start approaching women who are 2-4 inches taller then you. By all means don't expect too much out of those interactions.

I think that a lot of his original message got lost through the controversy that the article raised. I will say that he does have strong opinions, but if you can look passed that, there's an enormous ammount of knowledge that you can gain from him.

I would be easy on calling him a pua, he's doing this part time and he's selling his book minimal game for 8$. Take that ammount of money and go buy yourself a coffee and a donut at starbucks and see how much you have left.

I think I'm starting to like him

[Mark]

Well, if "looking past the controversy" means agreeing that warm approaches are easier and approach invitations are easier... then I hate to break it to you, there's nothing new or innovative about that. The most retarded PUA in 2006 could have told you that. Fact of the matter he called cold approaching "useless." It's not useless. Sure, it's probably over-emphasized. And yes, it's not necessary. But it's not useless. It has a lot of uses.

IMO, the guy just fishes for controversy.

[Zac]

Quote:the guy just fishes for controversy

The way I see it after looking through his site he is just a PUA who calls out a bunch of other PUA's and pretends to be super different while still selling PUA material and coaching. Instead of really providing a ton of quality he instead bashes people.

For instance he pretty much refused to link back to the thread here where he farmed his content from for his recent article about Mark's response. He said he "never does that". That's pretty lame. He takes content from other people's forums, takes it out of context, doesn't talk about the rest of the conversation, and writes his own blog post about it.

If I tried to make a living bashing other people I'd at least have the common courtesy to link back to them. He has absolutely no journalistic integrity. He doesn't source where he gets his information and he implies things that he has no business implying when he has no information to back things up. He talks about people's integrity and he lacks it a ton.

He implied many times that Mark's name isn't Mark Manson even though he admits to not really knowing. He himself is hiding behind a fake name on the internet. If he was so proud of what he does he would use his own name. Deep down I'm sure he knows what he is even if he fools himself and others into thinking he is some kind of honest source of advice for men.

Get your real name up there imo. Stand behind what you have to say. The guy really doesn't. Keep hiding behind a pseudonym. It's cute. Can't be to comfortable with yourself it that's how you are rolling through life. Sorry. I have a really hard time trusting people like that who pretend to care but won't even tell you their real name.

[crazyhorse]

Actually if you read further down his blog (one of the older entries). There's a guy who has used what he described and had a 25% succes rate, and here on this forum we keep talking about 10%. What he meant in general is, be more selective on who you approach. Height is a very common thing here, a guy who's 5f3, he's going to have to be more selective on who he approaches. That's pretty much common sense.

So in a nutshell, approacfh women who 1) seem like they want to be approached or are open to being approached or 2) approach women who give you a signal. There's hardly anything glamourous about that advice. But then why dit it stirr up so much controversy? I mean he never said it was useless, he said it was pretty much useless. Meaning, you can do a whole lot better when you select who you approach and where you will approach.

@ Zac, the dude doesn't do this as his primary income. I heared that he's a professor. Face it, you don't want to get associated with this stuff or else you'll risk ruining your reputation.

Look I'm not a fun of the entire controversy behind it, but he did publish that quote the way it was presented here.

[Jon]

@ Crazyhorse. Yes but that is just wrong, in my opinion. Maybe it's different for some guys, but I am not good at noticing approach invitations. I will avoid approaching women who look like they are busy or preoccupied (on a cell phone, listening to music on earphones, doing something intently) but the reality is, there is a big area of "open" between actively inviting an approach and actively not wanting an approach. For instance, a woman who is browsing in a store isn't necessarily thinking, "oh i hope a guy approaches, let me give off signals" but she may very well be open to it. Also, the way you figure this out is trial and error. For instance - approaching women on the street in the business district on a weekday is much less likely to work than approaching women on a weekend in a residential neighborhood. This is common sense to an extent but its stuff you figure out through trial and error - where the women are, where they tend to be most receptive, etc. "Trial and error" amounts to cold approaching.

[Mace]

I have a buddy who's short, skinny and Sri Lankan. There's nothing remotely physically attractive about him on sight. No girl will ever give him an "IOI" or an "approach invitation". White girls here generally avoid all eye contact with minority guys.

Yet has a strong, commanding presence. He's smooth. He has a deep voice. He knows how to lead the interaction. He knows how to make the girl her comfortable. He's completely disarming.

But girls would have never found this out if he never cold approached. He'd be stereotyped with all the other awkward, accented dudes from the subcontinent - because that's how he may appear on sight.

If he followed Aaron Sleazy's advice (look for signals before approaching) he would not be getting laid by numerous cute blonde college co-eds. Guaranteed

[baller08]

Quote:But girls would have never found this out if he never cold approached. He'd be stereotyped with all the other awkward, accented dudes from the subcontinent - because that's how he may appear on sight.

If he followed Aaron Sleazy's advice (look for signals before approaching) he would not be getting laid by numerous cute blonde college co-eds. Guaranteed

Yep, this is why anytime you hear, "xyz is useless"....really make sure you test it out in the real world to see how valid it is. Honestly I can't think of one method that is completely and utterly "useless". It either has a direct or indirect benefit so long as its used appropriately.

[crazyhorse]

(04-26-2012 02:28 PM)Jon Wrote:  @ Crazyhorse. Yes but that is just wrong, in my opinion. Maybe it's different for some guys, but I am not good at noticing approach invitations. I will avoid approaching women who look like they are busy or preoccupied (on a cell phone, listening to music on earphones, doing something intently) but the reality is, there is a big area of "open" between actively inviting an approach and actively not wanting an approach. For instance, a woman who is browsing in a store isn't necessarily thinking, "oh i hope a guy approaches, let me give off signals" but she may very well be open to it. Also, the way you figure this out is trial and error. For instance - approaching women on the street in the business district on a weekday is much less likely to work than approaching women on a weekend in a residential neighborhood. This is common sense to an extent but its stuff you figure out through trial and error - where the women are, where they tend to be most receptive, etc. "Trial and error" amounts to cold approaching.

One of the arguments on his blog was about a research where they observed a group of pua's and afterwards interviewed them. These men all talked about how they choose to approach her and did x,y,z while in fact the researchers noticed that the women had already been sending signals towards them.

I mean, face it we all know that a women has already decided whether she'll like you even before you've opened her mouth.

I'm not saying his way of viewing things comes without error, but I still like the content of the article. I know guys who literally feel like they have to approach the entire time. It's ridiculous.

(04-26-2012 02:58 PM)Mace Wrote:  I have a buddy who's short, skinny and Sri Lankan. There's nothing remotely physically attractive about him on sight. No girl will ever give him an "IOI" or an "approach invitation". White girls here generally avoid all eye contact with minority guys.

Yet has a strong, commanding presence. He's smooth. He has a deep voice. He knows how to lead the interaction. He knows how to make the girl her comfortable. He's completely disarming.

But girls would have never found this out if he never cold approached. He'd be stereotyped with all the other awkward, accented dudes from the subcontinent - because that's how he may appear on sight.

If he followed Aaron Sleazy's advice (look for signals before approaching) he would not be getting laid by numerous cute blonde college co-eds. Guaranteed

Didn't you say that you mostly hooked up with foreign girls? Let's say you find a place where there are a lot of foreign girls or you manage to find a way to spot these girls on your campus. Don't you think your succes rate would go up a lot? It doesn't mean that you can't hit on other girls, but this seem to be a pretty big demographic that's into you. So focus on that.

[Zac]

Quote:I mean, face it we all know that a women has already decided whether she'll like you even before you've opened her mouth.

Factual?

[crazyhorse]

(04-28-2012 03:22 PM)Zac Wrote:  

Quote:I mean, face it we all know that a women has already decided whether she'll like you even before you've opened her mouth.

Factual?

I definetly believe this one, she definetly sees you coming.

[Zac]

I feel as though that's over simplified. I"m sure a woman can tell she is warming up to me or open to my advances at first but there is a lot more to liking than the first 3 seconds a girl sees you.

[crazyhorse]

off course you can always fuck it up, but the opposite isn't true.

[Zac]

I have walked up to girls awkward as shit in my lifetime and ended up hooking up in some way or another. I've also walked up like the man and had things go south quickly. Anyone who pretends to know what is going to happen with any given or most social interactions is generalizing and oversimplifying.

[crazyhorse]

(04-28-2012 03:36 PM)Zac Wrote:  I have walked up to girls awkward as shit in my lifetime and ended up hooking up in some way or another. I've also walked up like the man and had things go south quickly. Anyone who pretends to know what is going to happen with any given or most social interactions is generalizing and oversimplifying.

totally not what I meant . Where did I said anything about walking up to her like you are the man?

When those girls saw you walking up to them, they already liked you. That's my point.

[Zac]

Yeah but they don't all already see you. I'm just confused by what you are trying to say I guess. If it's that a girl always knows within 3 seconds if she is going to sleep with you or like you I think that has a kernal of truth in it but isn't fully accurate.

I don't understand how anyone can claim that cold approach isn't worth it. I haven't seen much success with it but at the same time I think it's a very valuable thing to be able to do. I've cold approached and some girls end up so happy you did. Even if it doesn't get you laid. That's what I really don't understand. Aaron claims to not be a PUA but his only metric for success is weather or not you get laid or end up with the girl. He even uses guys percentages like a PUA to make his point.

I've cold approached hundreds of women and had great interactions with many of them. Most of them I haven't slept with. I've probably slept with 1% of them if anything. My life has been full and rich for having done it.

So yeah if you are a PUA and you are only cold approaching or warm approaching people becuase you are out with an outcome dependence of a high % of sexual partners from it cold approach is a really bad way to go about it but if you are a person who just likes talking to people, getting to know random women, trying to see where you vibe, and having fun with the world around them cold approach seems like a pretty solid thing to do.

I know you weren't saying all that but I just kind of went off on a tangent on why I think the whole "no cold approach thing" is just silly. It's just another thing for a bunch of people to circle jerk about online.

[crazyhorse]

(04-28-2012 03:47 PM)Zac Wrote:  Yeah but they don't all already see you. I'm just confused by what you are trying to say I guess. If it's that a girl always knows within 3 seconds if she is going to sleep with you or like you I think that has a kernal of truth in it but isn't fully accurate.

I don't understand how anyone can claim that cold approach isn't worth it. I haven't seen much success with it but at the same time I think it's a very valuable thing to be able to do. I've cold approached and some girls end up so happy you did. Even if it doesn't get you laid. That's what I really don't understand. Aaron claims to not be a PUA but his only metric for success is weather or not you get laid or end up with the girl. He even uses guys percentages like a PUA to make his point.

I've cold approached hundreds of women and had great interactions with many of them. Most of them I haven't slept with. I've probably slept with 1% of them if anything. My life has been full and rich for having done it.

So yeah if you are a PUA and you are only cold approaching or warm approaching people becuase you are out with an outcome dependence of a high % of sexual partners from it cold approach is a really bad way to go about it but if you are a person who just likes talking to people, getting to know random women, trying to see where you vibe, and having fun with the world around them cold approach seems like a pretty solid thing to do.

I know you weren't saying all that but I just kind of went off on a tangent on why I think the whole "no cold approach thing" is just silly. It's just another thing for a bunch of people to circle jerk about online.

well internet isn't the best tool for communication. I always had this feeling, the girl always sees you coming.

He never said it was useless, he just said that you shouldn't approach indiscriminately. You said you slept with 1% of them? This guy had a 25% succes rate (http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/04/...ory.html), after being more selective on which girls he would approach. I mean come on, if you can go from a 10% succes rate to a 25% succes rate. Wouldn't you be more happy?

If you all you want to do is talk, then I would suggest expanding your social circle.

I've always had a hunch about this, but then I read Sleazy's article and it really clicked with me. Most cold approaches were usually warm approaches but you failed to notice the signals.

I really don't get the controversy that it created, most people just didn't understood the article. It's pretty much common sense.

[Halo Effect]

I feel like we are getting a little overboard now with the anti-PUA sentiments.

Sure, a first impression counts heavily. But crazyhorse and others, you are now saying that attraction can be decreased after the initial approach, but can never be increased? That is just plain wrong. If it's all decided in the first three seconds and she cannot become more attracted to you after that based on your behavior, then that means that whatever level of attraction you have in the first three seconds will remain constant FOREVER (or become lower). This is clearly not true. Girls can become totally into you as they get to know you better...

[crazyhorse]

I never said that girls can't get to like you. You see this a lot in social circle situations. It can definetly happen. But can you image the massive time investment if you would have to pull that off from a cold approach situation?

Why simply not focus on the girls who seem into you right away. Both before the approach and after the approach. It would make things a lot easier and your dating life would feel less like a chore. You really don't want to be the guy who's trying to get a girl to like him only to have her run away with some other dude. Which is a very plausible situation if you focus on lukewarm girls.

I also never said it remains constant. You can always fuck it up, or say something incredibly stupid.

slightly off topic: Halo can you write about your experiences both before and after using porn? , haha. I asked you this on the blog discussion, but I think you missed. Don't feel pressured though, just do it when you feel like doing it.

[Mark]

1) The title of Sleazy's freaking post is "Cold Approach is Pretty Much Useless" -- You're definitely drinking the fanboy kool-aid if you don't recognize that he called it "useless."

2) Arguing about 25% versus 10% "success rates" goes against more or less everything I've taught in the last year and it continues to drive me crazy no matter what thread it pops up on. Stop objectifying your fucking social lives and start focusing on happiness and quality of interactions, not quantity or ratios. You can enjoy an interaction with a girl and not sleep with her. You can sleep with a girl and feel worse because of it. STOP FUCKING MEASURING YOUR EMOTIONAL LIVES AND START LIVING. Jesus christ...

3) It is absurd to assume that EVERY girl you approach knows you're about to approach her. This simply isn't realistic.

4) There have been MANY times where women have been lukewarm to me when I approached them and then went on and slept with me and/or dated me. The girl I'm in NYC with right now is one such example. She loves telling the story of how when she saw me approaching, she thought to herself, "Oh God, another one..." and three months later she's flown 3,000+ miles to see me. If I waited for approach invitations, I would not be here with her right now.

5) Criticizing people without linking and quoting what was said in its entirety is poor form and would never be published in any professional publication. It's intellectually dishonest. If he wants to criticize me, fine. But he should at least represent me fairly. To intentionally not to and hide it by not linking is manipulating his readership and a piss-poor way to promote himself.

Locking this thread because once again, it's just a big circle jerk of mental masturbation. Approach the women you like. Rejection happens, get used to it. I'm not sure why this is so fucking controversial... oh wait, I know why, because Sleazy told you it's useless.

As with everything, go out and do what works for yourself.