A New Paradigm

This is the last part of my Learning PU series, and introduces a new paradigm for sarging. Although it certainly contains elements from other schools of thought, it is a new way of thinking about PU, relating the deepest mental structures of the mind to the most practical techniques.

It will, once and for all, remove the "inner vs outer game" separation.

With it, I will present a new foundation for your understanding of PU, but it is not only a PU model but a huge mental model for your mind. This is because ultimately, pick up is a mental skill. It is our understanding for women, men, and ourselves that gives us the opportunity to improve. Knowledge is mental. Skills are mental. Fear is mental. They are inside your head, and the power to conquer the minds and hearts of others comes from the power of your own mind.

So you say, "so this is inner game!" It is "inner" game in the sense that it is a model for your own mind yes, but what I am about to give you is not a set of cool beliefs that will boost your ego and make you more motivated or feel better about yourself.

No, I will assume that you are motivated, that you are not an idiot, that you already have some mental strengths (and some weaknesses), and from there, I will start showing you have to, well, change your mind. This distinction will soon become clearer.

This post is only meant as a bridge between my earlier "Learning PU" parts, and the upcoming model, and here I want to make you think twice about how you view PU today.

There is a great chance you joined the community because you weren't satisfied with your sexual life. You felt you couldn't get enough girls. You may have felt as if there was something wrong with you, something that needed to be fixed.

Of course, something needs to change if you want to improve. The question is only what, and most guys focus either one, or a combination, of two paradigms: the inner game paradigm, and the outer game paradigm.

The inner game paradigm is founded on the idea that your mental processes constitute the primary boundary for your potential to achieve more, and in particular, your beliefs. What we don't believe in, we don't achieve, and what we believe in, we do achieve. Consequently, "inner game guys" tend to be spiritual and unscientific. Taken to an extreme, it is one big mental masturbation orgy, based on selective perception and backwards rationalization. When everything must conform to your sense of reality, the real world sometimes becomes a distant place, and sadly, less real. This is why so many inner game guys talk a lot but never improve: to them it's all mental, mental masturbation. Of course, the inner game paradigm has its strength too: it is true that our beliefs can heavily limit us, and conversely, motivate us to achieve our dreams.

The outer game paradigm is founded on the idea that causality (cause and effect) is determined by physical, observable processes, namely your own actions. We are what we do. Outer game guys tend to hold a more scientific view, heavily relying on a deep understanding for female psychology. Taken to its extreme, it is the rejection of the self: I am a set of instructions, implemented in my brain, to perform various tasks, and my perspective/opinions doesn't matter. By acquiring better techniques (instructions), I will sarge better (perform task). Its strength lies in its ability to achieve fast results ("fake it til you make it"), its weakness in its inability to achieve core changes to the underlying structure of your mind (it's still fake, you can't relate to what you are doing). As a consequence, outer game guys tend to give unnatural impressions, and the longer you get to know them, the more vulnerable they become.

Ironically, naturals tend to prefer outer game, for the simple reason that they already have strong inner game and are hence looking for the concrete solutions. I know, because I was one of them.

With these observations in mind, one has to ask: is it possible to merge parts of the two into one, taking the best of both worlds and leaving out all of their weaknesses? Yes, it is possible, and actually not that hard if one is ready to drop some misconceptions that are deeply rooted in this community.

The details will be presented in later posts: they are huge and sometimes complex. Here, I will scheme through the big picture.

The intuitive idea is this: get a very deep understanding for who you are, then use both your core strength and weaknesses to your advantage rather than trying to change yourself at the core, then extend your core into other areas of your mind and find the set of behaviors ("techniques") that are congruent with this (very strong) image of yourself. All while doing the field work of course.

This way, you avoid the outer game weaknesses of "ignoring the self" while getting all the advantages of having congruent efficient techniques. You obviously get all the inner game advantages of shaping a strong set of beliefs, and you avoid the problem of constantly having to come back to the same problems (your core weaknesses), because instead of thinking you have to get rid of them, you identify with them and turn them into something that will work to your advantage (for a concrete example, vulnerabilities are DHVs!), and as a bonus, there is no need for bullshit beliefs like "I can get anyone I want". In fact, they won't be part of your core beliefs, and neither any extended set of beliefs, because you will find them to be completely useless.

To guide you through all these steps, I will write a lot of posts. First, I will introduce a model for how mental units can be represented, and use it to describe the basics. I will visualize the inner/outer game problems discussed above. Then, I will describe what the mind's core looks like, and how it works. You will then gain an increasing ability to change your own mind, and those of others. Finding behaviors congruent with your core identity will be an exercise in creativity: visualize what you would do in various situations based on a set of universal principles (the rules of calibration). Then do it in the field.

This was all for my five part series, and as you've seen, the better part still awaits. I hope to have gained your attention and made you rethink how PU is done; let me know by leaving a comment after reading the post (now!).

The K-factor: Sluts and Sweethearts

In PU discussions, I often get questions on issues of calibration towards certain types of girls. I will address the problem from a fairly technical perspective to begin with, but the latter half of the article will focus on the practical applications of this theory.

General PU principles work well on average, and when they apply to personality traits or preferences that don't vary much, all is good. For example, girls like warm alpha guys, and this trait does not vary a whole lot. Even when it does, girls alpha prefer warm alpha guys to any of the other 3 types (cold alpha, warm beta, cold beta), so we don't have to worry about variations in girls' preferences in this regard. Other traits that don't vary much is the fact that girls are escalation passive, expecting men to do the escalation (see the escalation model), that girls are sexually submissive (although there is more variation in this one than the previous two examples), that girls want guys with strong and independent identities (the post I've written about identity doesn't cover these issues well enough, I'll update it with a better one soon).

However, some principles are much more variable. For example, some girls prefer dark haired guys to blond guys , some prefer more masculine features (rough features such as shaved head or very short hair, beard, big muscles, simple clothing) to feminine ones (soft features such as long hair, shaved smooth skin, exotic clothing).

Some girls are more promiscuous than others, going out to clubs many times a week to drink and hook up with guys for sex, also taking bigger safety risks by leaving the club to spend the night with a new guy. They may have a boyfriend while doing this, or may be dating multiple guys at the same time. They are what we typically call "party sluts".

Others prefer to have dinner with friends at home, a nice conversation with wine, watching a movie. They may or may not have had one or two ONSs before, but as they would put it, it's not "their thing". They are usually in monogamous LTRs, with little time between each boyfriend (sometimes overlapping them slightly!).

What is interesting is not that you can find pretty much all sorts of variations, but that you can characterize them. Any retard can state the useless assertion that "girls are all different"; what's truly interesting is however the pattern by which you relate the various ways in which they are different. I am talking about correlation: girls that have a lot of sex partners party more. They also cheat more. More generally, they are risk-seeking. They more egoistic and neurotic.

Conversely, girls that have few sex partners party less. They cheat less, and are risk-aversive. And they are more altruistic. I'm pretty sure you recognize these stereotypes. Could it be that these stereotypes are false, creations of our minds, an attempt to belittle the promiscuous ones? We could discuss the validity of the correlation above, but only out of ignorance: a lot of both scientific research related to this has been done, and the correlations have already been statistically determined.

The K-factor packs together these correlated traits. A low K-factor means high mating efforts (many nights out), lots of sex partners, risk-seeking, egoism, Machiavellianism, and neuroticism. In fact, the research points to more correlations than above mentioned, but we won't need it for our discussion. A high K-factor implies the opposite: low mating efforts, with all the correlates. In short, promiscuous people have low K-factor and vice versa. The term K comes from an equation describing bounded population growth in population genetics (populations grow because of mating!), and K-strategists are species that have high levels of parental investments, whereas r-strategies produce many offsprings. Think of it as quantity (r) versus quality (K).

To make this concept interesting in PU, and in particular with girls, I will extend it with some key observations.

r-strategic girls select more based on their attraction and less on their connection. Hence they have a stronger preference towards attractive alpha traits and less so towards comfort (risk seeking). When attracted, they indicate their interest more blatantly by giving heavy proximity and AIs. They may even open you. On the dance floor, they may not only dance close to you but back into you! If you think girls bump into you with their asses by mistake on the dance floor, you are...well, you need more experience. They have low levels of ASD, so focusing too much time on ASD killers is wasting precious escalation time. However, as all girls, they will not typically help you escalate. What they will do however, is to be physically responsive to all your escalation (especially kino). This means they will immediately "jump up" to the next kino level with you.

Many of them are party chicks, with high energy, but this is deceiving because there are plenty of low energy r-strategic girls. You typically don't realize they are keen on you until you try escalating, and you realize they give no resistance at all, although they can be very passive. This is what I call passive-submissive girls (low energy r-strategists), in contrast to party sl...chicks (high energy r-strategists).

Direct game works efficiently on r-strategic girls: they appreciate the alpha male attitude all the way to the bedroom (or bathroom).

In all these regards, K-strategists are opposites: they of course care about attraction but less so than r-strategists, comfort is typically important to them (this doesn't mean you need a day 3 to close them, only that you should build more comfort/connection in the club). When they want your attention, they will be more careful: perhaps proximity with their backs turned towards you, or a quick AI without smile.

Most girls respond to escalation when attracted (see the escalation model), but some passive K-strategists may be kino neutral: they will neither help you nor prevent you from kino escalating. This means you can work freely with brush kino, but hold kino will require you to have some balls and lead with calibration. In contrast to r-strategists, K girls don't appreciate the super alpha male, but a more "sophisticated" form of implicit and subtle alpha frame. Indeed, indirect game works efficiently on K-strategic girls; all the way to the bedroom, but once foreplay is initiated, switch to dominance frame pinging (you want to get as much dominance as she finds attractive, which is usually quite a lot, but not scare her).

Perhaps best of all, K-factor is also determined by how hot the girl is: 7s and 8s tend to be more r whereas 9s and 10s more K. More generally, girls' hotness is about proportional to their K-factor. This is no surprise to anyone who either has lots of experience with girls, or understands evolutionary psychology, and the beautiful thing about it is that it allows you to estimate her K-factor, and hence calibrate your own game strategy (attraction/comfort balance, escalation strategy, frame) as soon as you spot her.

Of course, you continuously keep updating your calibration according to new information as you interact, through intuition, but this gives you a better calibration than assuming she's average (50/50) or even worse, being passive and careful on the approach (which is not consistent with any belief about her K-factor). So with really hot girls, you initially assume she's more K (relative to 50/50), with semi hot girls, you assume she's more r (again, relative to 50/50).

What about men then? As you may have guessed, guys are more r relative to girls, whom are more K. In this community, most guys are very r, or want to be. In fact, this community can be described as a collaborative grouping of r guys.

Do girls prefer r or K guys? The question doesn't have as much relevance as the following: how do girls respond to r and K guys? It is clear that the r guys in general better capture the notion of "lovers" whereas K guys the notion of "providers", although equality should not be drawn between them. Many K guys are warm alphas lover types, who simply prefer monogamous relationships by their own choice. However, all r-strategic guys are lover types (you cannot invest heavily in diversity of mating efforts and be a provider at the same time) and girls of course know that. That's why they say stuff like "you're a player aren't you?" and "you have many girls don't you?". The "aren't you" and "don't you" are indications of them already knowing the answer, and when attracted to you, also expresses their (subconscious) wish for you to confirm it.

But girls aren't going to sleep with you earlier on because you're an r strategist: they won't sleep with you just because you aren't interested in a LTR, as little as they would sleep with you just because you are looking for a LTR. Your K-factor has nothing to do with her compliance. She is going to sleep with you early on because you're an attractive guy, meaning concepts like warm alpha and game skills are what matters (I will introduce a more complex and powerful perspective on attractiveness very soon). If you're an r and she really likes you, she will hope you switch to K as you spend more time with her. If you're a K and she only wants sex, she's going to make sure to not give you any false promises.

Any comments welcome.

The Escalation Model

Since many people sent me questions about my story Rationalized Attraction, I'll write a full article about the escalation model I used to teach students at my training programs.

Really, it should be called the Attraction-Compliance-Escalation-Rationalization model, because that's what it is really about: the relationship between Attraction, Compliance, Escalation, and Rationalization. It is a stronger form of the Triangle of Escalation: this post replaces it completely, and hence, there is no need to read the older one in the hope of learning something.

To begin, ask yourself what attraction is actually useful for. Of course, something cannot be useful without talking about goals. Without goals, nothing has any use, by definition. The goal is usually a sexual relationship of some sort, so it is not strange that a common answer is "attraction is useful because girls will have sex with you if they're attracted". Well, attraction is surely necessary, but typically not sufficient. If every girl who was attracted to you would have sex with you just like that, my guess is you wouldn't find this post very interesting.

No, what attraction does, very concretely, is to give you compliance. The more attracted somebody is to you, the more compliance you will have. In fact, this holds true outside of PU: the more someone likes you (is "attracted" to you, although non-sexually too), the more they will comply to do with you (help you in various ways). And compliance, of course, is useful because it allows you to get her investing in you. An investment generally belongs to any of the following five categories: physical (kino, kissing, sex), social (qualifying, rapport), logistical (moving her, bouncing, extraction), time spent together, and work (buying you stuff, doing things for you). In order to get, say some kissing, you need certain compliance levels from her. And attraction will give you this compliance, which is precisely why kissing is validating to most people: it is a proof of attraction. When you are kissing someone, you know that person is attracted to you. But as I will show you now, this logic fails at higher levels of compliance.

Attraction automatically generates compliance. Once she feels attracted to you (regardless of whether you triggered it by doing something or not), she will comply to more things with you. In contrast, compliance does not automatically generate investments: you will usually have to make her invest in you by initiating kino (if you want kino investments), qualifying, asking more personal questions, or moving her somewhere else. This initiation is called a hoop.

Girls are more passive than guys, and this is precisely what it means: girls will not automatically convert their compliance to investments for you, whereas guys will usually convert their compliance into investments for her (this can be alpha or needy depending on the context, I'll leave this interesting subtopic for another time). The process by which you convert her compliance into investments (through hoops) is known as escalation. Note however, that hoops may not be difficult at all: you may know she's really keen (attracted, and hence you have compliance), gazing at your eyes, waiting for you to romantically kiss her, and your hoop may simply be to lean forward and put your tongue in her mouth. In fact, you don't want put out hoops that you suspect she may defy, because of something known as rationalization. It's better to start with smaller, safe hoops, and create more attraction if needed in the beginning.

What is rationalization? Known as cognitive dissonance or cognitive consistency theory among psychologists, it is the fascinating fact that humans tend to give rational, but false, explanations for actions they've already taken. Logically, they are trying to keep a consistency between "I am a good decision maker" and the decisions they've taken. In other words, people lie to themselves in order to feel as good decision makers!

Let's say you see this hottie in the bar. If you walk up to her and stick your tongue into her mouth, you will most likely not get a very positive response. She will most likely stare at you like you were an idiot (not that bad), run away from you in discomfort, tell you to fuck off, or even smack you in the face (not a shit test). However, if you walk up to that same hottie, start off a light but fun conversation, get some brush kino going while she's laughing, then some hold kino while she's giggling, you will have no problem kissing her. And this could all be done in less than one minute. These dramatic differences in outcome are a result of smooth escalation of course: instead of jumping from no communication to kissing directly, you are taking your time by getting her used to your kino before kissing. Here, the "getting her used to" is precisely what rationalization is about: for every small investment she makes (in this case kino), she is (almost always unconsciously) rationalizing that she must like you since she is agreeing to escalate with you. This rationalization means that investments create more attraction!

So attraction creates compliance, compliance can be converted into investments, and then, through rationalization, her investments will give you more attraction, and hence even more compliance. No wonder things usually go really smooth once the attraction is there and you're drunk enough to actually do the escalation, known as cavemanning.

This also means that attraction is only needed initially, to create the lowest levels of compliance needed. Once you have that, and start escalating, compliance will be generated through her own rationalization. The more you do with her, the more you will do with her.

Here is an illustration of the basic model.



Now, that's all for the basics. Let us go deeper. It's time for some minor corrections to make the model more complete.

Firstly, attraction doesn't always automatically creates compliance. The problem is usually the boyfriend. She's attracted to you, but won't comply anyway. Maybe hand holding and hug closes for you, but no kissing. When you hit the "attraction no longer gives compliance" barrier, it will usually sound like this: "I can't, I have a boyfriend". Translated into what you really want to know, it means this: "attraction will no longer give compliance, use connection if she really likes you, fear of loss if she doesn't (jealousy is included here)".

Connection, by the way, also gives compliance. The difference is that connection itself comes from the other person building large investments for you, and the most precious investments with respect to connection is emotional invesments. The more she is thinking about you, the more connection she will build. I will get back to this in depth when writing about memetics. Now, you can't get any emotional investments, or any investments at all for that matter, if you don't have compliance to start with. So connection cannot create the first sparks of compliance, only attraction can. Attraction first, then escalation, connection later.

Another way in which attraction fails to create compliance is through ASD. This is usually because you're escalating too fast: either you're hoops are too big, meaning you're working above your compliance levels, or because you're hoops are too dense in time (do it just a little slower). When ASD hits, it usually sounds like this: "I'm not that kind of girl". However, this is usually not enough to stop you from escalating. The solution is usually to insert the following words into her ears: "I know", "only with me" (is cheesy in many situations, calibrate), "don't be clumsy now". You get the idea: keep it light, fun, playful, without losing frame, don't make a big deal out of it, retain your current levels of kino/investments, and start escalating again soon. If it doesn't work you might get a "no really, it's too early". More connection or Next, your choice.

If ASD hits after the investment (for example after taking off her panties), they almost always say "I don't usually do this", which means that you really need to keep your frame strong and keep escalating (lead). And smile, threatening look is not part of "strong frame". Again, don't make a big deal out of it, just let the comment pass by with just a little notice to confirm you understand but think she's silly. Usually, that comment is for herself (rationalization, remember), not for you. The same goes for "we're not going to have sex tonight" while you are pulling her back to your place.

In general, when something is stopping your attraction from generating compliance, you need to remove the plug with fear of loss, or create more compliance through connection. Sometimes pure logistics matter: it's a 2-set and she won't leave her gay friend (use a wing if you can, or try to extract both), she has friends staying at her place tonight (tell her to give them the key), or whatever of the hundreds of combinations in which girls stick together when going out. Use the most straight forward solution to the logistical problems (no "game" needed, just fix the problem), or time bridge and Next.

Let's move on to escalation. There's something called window of opportunity, and it has to do with the timing by which you throw out escalation hoops. You see, in reality compliance is fluctuating all the time. During some seconds, it may be high, during others, less so. I can only speculate in why this is. Perhaps it's an alphaness test to see whether you have the balls to make your move quickly or chicken out, a sort of shit test on escalation. Perhaps the alcohol is destabilizing her responsiveness mechanisms (indeed, sober girls offer more long lasting and stable windows of opportunity). But it doesn't matter, that's the way it is, and all we need to do is to take the escalation step as soon as the signal goes off. It's a 0 second rule, and so you need to have internalized the natural steps of escalation.

The escalation steps for kino are listed in my kino escalation post.

Those for logistics are simple and obvious enough to give here in order of increasing compliance levels: mini-isolation, moving her inside the club, isolation, going outside for air or smoke, bouncing, extraction. Normally, you only do mini-isolation and extraction, and at most one move, bounce, or isolation. Moving her around too much can cause her to pay more attention to her friends and should be avoided (look at the logistical problems I just mentioned above!). Oh, and extract early, not when the music goes off and lights go on (she will look for her friends).

The social steps are by far the most complicated, and will follow as a special case from many upcoming posts about memetics.

Time is an automatic investment, there are no hoops. The more time you spend together, the more she will like you. But it is also a diminishing form of rationalization: the more time you have spent together, the less time will affect her rationalization mechanism. Orbiter strategies rely on time investments only, which are worthless because in practice, time only gives more compliance during the early interactions you have (up to about a day 5). Now that you know, you may as well forget about time investments because they are completely automatic: nothing you can do about them at all.

Work is the kind of investment you appreciate receiving but wouldn't normally request. If she buys you a drink, great. If you bounce and she pays your entrance fee, great. With respect to windows of opportunity, work is completely useless. It's strength is best appreciated in LTRs, where you can actually get your girl to cook, clean, and sew for you. What providers never seem to get is that when they provide, i.e. invest in the girl, it is they who are rationalizing more attraction and connection for the girl, not the girl who is getting more attracted or connected to them. They are shooting themselves in the foot. The asshole strategy works so well precisely because the asshole let's his girls invest shitloads in him, while he's out having fun with his friends, that is, not giving her any validation for her work, hence motivating her to work even harder for him. Now that you understand the escalation model, it is no surprise she will be the one falling for him.

Finally, there are plenty of ways to exploit rationalization. For one thing, avoid confirming any defies you get. If a girl flakes on you, you don't say "Oh that's too bad you had other things to do..." because there is no benefit and the obvious risk of strengthening her rationalization "I didn't meet up with him, therefore I don't really like him". One of the worst things you can say when you suspect she's not attracted is "this isn't going anywhere, is it?". She may not have decided yet (when do they ever? The answer seems to be: when sex has been rationalized), but because of that stupid comment, her mind goes "No...it isn't going anywhere. We've been talking for 10 minutes now, I'm just not attracted I guess." Needless to say perhaps, you are shutting down yourself by making her rationalize negative compliance for you. The girl's (subconscious) logic is always "because I've defied him, or we haven't escalated yet, there's no chemistry. He's not my type".

When you get a flake, instead say something along the frame "That's actually better for me, I realized I'd forgotten about X and we'll both have more time this weekend/next week/whatever". When it's not going anywhere with a girl, don't assume anything. Create attraction, and if you can't, just move on. It might at least create fear of loss. But standing there for one hour having a polite conversation with the girl who's sending dirty text messages to her boyfriend who's waiting in the bed isn't doing you any good. There are even better reasons for why you shouldn't treat yourself like a worthless piece of crap, which I'll get back to in later posts. Don't allow girls to negatively rationalize anything about you.

Conversely, you should reinforce her investments. If she does something nice for you, you say "you're such a cutie, how long did it take you to make this?" (or whatever suits your relationship).

Don't mix the reward for her behavior ("you're such a cutie") with the reinforcement ("how long did it take to make this?"). Both are good, but they work after different principles: rewards make her feel good about behaving in a certain way, reinforcements make her realize why she has done these things for you. Hence rewards encourage her to do it again because of the pleasurable feelings received, reinforcements encourage her to do it again because she will like you more.

Other ways to reinforce investments are "thanks, it's lovely, I can see you really like me" (C&F frame), "no fucking way, did you do this for me?", "wow, that's one of the nicest things somebody has ever given me".

Questions and comments welcome.

A Realistic Approach and Oracle's Story

In this post I want to share with you the story of how I went from being an average (but not that frustrated) guy to a natural, to a PUA, and then to were I am now. With this, I want to show you the importance of some key things:

1. Having wings that are also your friends, whom you can have fun with and discuss a variety of things with. Have a regular wing (preferably an rAFC or PUA) and many other guys to go out with, ideally a mix of naturals and PUAs. This is the most important one in terms of getting started and having regularity in going out. When you're too lazy to out, you're wing will push you to go out. And you'll do the same for him.
   
2. Exposing yourself to a wide range of different sarging environments, from shitty to classy venues, dance floor game, bar bouncing, street sarging, fast make outs, fast extractions, day 2+ (anything after the first time meeting). This is the only way to learn to calibrate according to an immense number of variables making up the complexity of this game. Travel the world, and literally fuck it.
   
3. Trying out a wide range of different relationships: multiple same night make outs, ONS, in-venue-close, FB through FNC, FB through day 2+, multiple LTRs, girlfriends, girls with boyfriends, girls with girlfriends, multiple same night extractions. This is mainly to motivate yourself into trying more new things, making game something really fun. You win a video game and you get to see some credits of computer programmers you probably don't even care about. You win this game and you get to play with boobs, ass, vagina, and face. Motivated?
   

I want to highlight all these points below (especially the two first), by giving you my own story now.

It all began in May 2003, when my girlfriend broke up with me after almost a year together. I went to university in a student city, meaning there was a lot of student partys many times a week. At that time I hadn't been in contact with the community yet, and was still trying to improve my natural abilities with girls. My best friend and "wing" was Yusha.p, and just like me, he was also very analytic and demanded real improvements in this area. We started going out many times a week, talking to lots of sets, our closing rate gradually increasing over the months. This environment differs from the standard night club environment in some regards: since we are all students, there is little bitch shield to be worried about. We are all loosely connected in an extended social circle, so opening techniques are not really a concern. We rarely discussed the matter, instead focusing on how to escalate (being naturals at work, we relied on initial attraction to begin with). It was mostly about having balls and not hesitating. In the modern language of PU: strong frame, being unreactive, relaxed, leading, and having fun.

Then, after a summer where we both went abroad separately, we rejoined in our student city for a party, and discussed our experiences abroad. There was one very simple point I was particularly keen to get through: when I used to go out in Sweden, I would be very careful in my interactions with strangers. But when abroad, I would treat people more openly and be less careful, this because a feeling of anonymity would be present. This carefulness is unattractive, and conversely, the openness and ease with which you interact with people is attractive. Now, my main point is that this feeling of being "anonymous" abroad but not at home is mainly internal to myself. It was only inside my own head, a limiting belief, not allowing myself to be the person I truly wanted to be. Yusha.p agreed fully, and we kept discussing this topic before going out. When we got out, I told him I was going to open a specific 2-set near the dance floor, and asked him to come in after 30 seconds (which, admittedly, is usually a little bit too early, but this was long before we embraced the various techniques given by this community!). As soon as he came, we split them into two mini-isolations, swapped (rationalized explanation: we both preferred the other one, real explanation: randomness), pumped up their BT on the dance floor, started making out, and finally, pulled them back to my place. Yusha.p eventually got his girl back to his place with him, leaving each one of us for a night of fun. Our new realization (belief) had already made it's first impact. To this day, both me and Yusha.p agree that night changed us in a significant way, and all this because of one belief with a corresponding affirmation. We believed in something, and it became true that night. And for a long long time, it would glow inside us, fueling our minds with the motives to learn game.

Then one day the curiosity began to grow beyond something I wanted to keep to myself and friends. I launched google and searched for seduction advice. I found this book, short and to the point, written by a Swedish guy called "Player", and his free e-book "Playerskolan" (translation: "The Player School"). I don't remember the details anymore but I believe the book was more motivational than technical in nature, which was fine at that time. It also had a reference to DYD, and from there, the community was discovered.

Me and Yusha.p started practicing C&F, brutally and systematically applying the concepts on the poor students of our university. Me, a little bit more of the F part, Yusha.p, a little bit more of the C part. We had more fun than ever before testing various techniques, but the peak of pleasure was the noticeable increase in lays. A whole new world had appeared to me, with the fascination of laying new hot chicks one after the other. Every semester, new girls came to study in the city, and we had an inexhaustible set of girls to close. We were creating our own paradise.

So far, my involvements in the community had been limited to DYD and discussions with Yusha.p, who in turn had come in contact with some other guys that shared our passion. But this would all change as I went to Australia to finish my degree: I joined the Brisbane Lair to start sarging more seriously. After writing my presentation to the 50 or so members, I assumed I was going to be one of the less skilled players. It turned out to be the opposite. The first, and only, member to contact me was their best: Odin. Our first night together is history: he gamed with a more indirect approach to begin with, me, being a natural, had a more direct approach to start of interactions. I was fascinated by his natural social skills: he was quick, creative, funny, and lighthearted. He always came across as someone that didn't want anything from anyone else, apart from socializing. And yet, he did all this with no arrogance. For the most part: sometimes it is needed, and he wouldn't restrain from being antagonistic either.

We started gaming together several times a week. I started practicing the Venusian Arts: indirect openers, attract game, comfort game. Soon enough, I realized no one had yet made a systematic approach to First Night Closes (FNC, as opposed to later night closes, like the Venusian Arts). Some pieces were missing: extraction game, seduction game (the LMR technique of pair bonding obviously doesn't work when you have low levels of comfort), postsex comfort game (since you don't have enough comfort before sex to assume you now have a sexual relationship), postcomfort game (how to keep LTRs, how deeper levels of connection and love work). Also, some part of standard game models weren't consistent with our own observations. We realized that much (but not all) in this community was about "show game": impressing clueless guys with fancy lines and moves, getting some giggling but no real attraction that's actually needed to escalate.

Odin and I learnt a lot from each other, and developed several concepts and techniques together. Our game tightened for every month and we started getting laid like mad. We shattered our limiting beliefs one by one. Extractions within 30 minutes, then 20, then 10. Multiple extractions in one night. More FBs than I could count on one hand (actually not, because you can count to 31 with one hand!). Girls with boyfriends. Girls with girlfriends. We had the time of our lives.

We had a scheme for how to train: one weekdays we went to the city where there was a tourist bar. Most girls there were backpackers, meaning they would only stay there for a couple of days at most. This had many advantages: they are easy targets, many of them are Scandinavian hotties, you could say and do virtually anything without social consequences. On weekends, we practiced on more classy venues where hot girls went.

After a year in the Brisbane Lair, a new member named QBall joined us. He contacted me requesting some personal training, which I agreed too under one condition: that we would meet as equal friends, and not as student-teacher. Considering we were talking about 1-on-1 training multiple times a week, I found this to be the optimal choice for both of us. QBall was quite different in style from my at that time indirect style. He typically gamed more direct, with earlier kino and more heavy investments. He took the concepts I had but never really applied them as step by step procedures in field; rather, he mentally absorbed the ideas and once they became part of his internal belief system, they naturally started to shine outwards. In contrast to Odin and Yusha.p who had very similar belief structures to mine, QBall was different in many regards, consciously holding some inconsistent beliefs at the same time. Not only did I learn a lot about sarging, but also about how ideas and beliefs propagate in the minds of humans, a proto-science known as memetics, a topic that deserves many articles in it's own right.

I had now also turned to other types of game styles: direct natural game, different kino strategies (including kissing), day 2s and 3s, pawning strategies, and yes, cavemanning. The big picture started to become clear: I could now separate the bullshit, written by some retard with little experience, from the real thing. I could see some guys giving the wrong explanation for some interesting phenomenas. I had gotten a solid foundation for understanding and analyzing games, well founded in my own experiences, those of others, the science of evolutionary psychology (and more generally, modern psychology).

I returned from Australia having finished my degree, PU being the main focus of my life. I had already planned to travel around Asia for a while, and Nucleus came along. The field reports from that trip are to be found here, so I'll focus on my general improvements. This trip gave me time to focus on strengthening the connection between evolutionary psychology and PU, identity conveying, and day game. Most of it was however too theoretic to give direct techniques: rather, it gave me general concepts from which certain guidelines for strong behaviors followed. Without really realizing why, I became somewhat less structured.

Returning from my trip, I started running bootcamps in Sweden together with a new friend and wing, Prince. Prince was the true incarnation of Venusian Arts: structured, by the book, routine based. But he also had a naturally strong frame and strong beliefs, making him a true hybrid. After months of intense sarging together, we started running bootcamps together. And ironically, just like my students learnt from watching me, I learnt from watching them. Group dynamics became more obvious. And just like you'll find amazing patterns in how girls work, I found amazing patterns in how guys work. All this time I had been focusing on how to exploit cognitive biases and selection mechanisms in girls to my advantage, but by analyzing other guys, and more importantly, myself, I realized that I now had the tools to exploit my own mechanisms and those of other guys to help them improve! It's a big map, describing mental states, what they do, how they affect other mental states, what input they are affected by, and how communication across people affects these states. It's the true union of inner and outer game. And it is what I will show you in many of the upcoming posts.

How to not Improve

This is my first post relating to my experiences running bootcamps and coaching programs with guys. Here, I will start small by addressing the typical ways in which guys fail to improve in the game of PU.

If you, for some weird reason that doesn't matter to this discussion, would want to spend time on improving your PU skills without actually improving, what would you do? What would you do to waste your time on trying to improve but not succeeding?

Firstly, focusing on areas that have no relevance to you: if you can't even approach girls and get an interaction going for more than 20 seconds, there isn't much point to study seduction and postsarging techniques. If you're a natural that attracts girls with ease, you wouldn't want to spend too much time focusing on attraction game, but rather, start with comfort/seduction game. The rule is easy: focus on removing your bottlenecks (sticking points), use whatever you are already good at. Sometimes guys don't realize is that new sticking points arise all the time. You remove a bottleneck, and you detect a new one, simply because there will always be some parts of your game that are restricting your overall success relative to other parts. The only other option is that all parts of your game are equally good (unlikely), in which case you may freely choose an area to improve (I would recommend attract game, as it will increase your success rate more than any other part when everything else is equally good). This error of focus is the KJ problem: guys study lots of theory about everything, when in fact, their problem is usually very restricted at the moment: they can't even open or attract. A better solution to actually improve then, would be to only focus on getting some attract theory going and get some solid field experience by practicing.

For another thing, you would focus on game theories that are intellectually interesting but have little practical application. People dislike inconsistency and incompleteness, especially logical people, which draws their attention to various aspects of game that seem to contain dilemmas and paradoxes: What's best, inner game or outer game? How can I train myself in not caring about what others think of me, when the reason for why I'm training is because I do care about what others think of me in the first place? If I'm about to react to someone else but stop myself in time, I am in fact already reacting to them since I'm trying to not react; how can I overcome this? If everything I'm doing is a consequence of who I am, then how can I speak of things I do that isn't "me"? I will answer these questions in later posts; the problem for now is that asking yourselves questions whose answers have no practical implication isn't helping you improve. It is important to note that these are not questions in the "standard models of game", but questions about the nature of models: it asks questions that are of a logical/philosophical nature, rather than an empirical. The answers are more an exercise in logical reasoning than facts about how the world actually works (that would require experience in actually doing things). And these questions are popular precisely because they don't require much experience: we can all have lots of fun discussing them, with little knowledge of how the world of PU actually functions. I call this the philosophy of pick up, or meta PU, and although interesting, it is also a great way to divert your focus from making real improvements. Instead, focus on questions that have a direct impact on your game: how do I get into state? How do I open in various situations? How do I attract? How do I isolate? How do I handle her friends? How do I convey my personality and identity? How do I extract? Seduce? When is it better to call or text? What do I write? How do I setup my day 2? Day 3? There's plenty more of relevant questions, and some of them directly apply to you right now.

A third great way to not improve is to not take this seriously enough. You may read about this like a hobby, find it interesting, but never really experimenting when you actually go to bars and clubs. You may only get drunk, talk with friends, and have fun. Many naturals can do that, because once they get into state they start socializing with the crowd, hence naturally getting in contact with new girls. But if you're not already doing that, it's unlikely you'll start doing so by just drinking with your friends. You will actually need to go up to a girl or group of people and start a conversation. The reason why guys don't take this step is because it is mentally huge for them. I am of course talking about fear of rejection. Typically, they don't even know that the true reason they aren't doing anything is fear, and as long as they refuse to see this, the problem will not go away. Ignoring weaknesses, known as mental masturbation or wishful thinking, can actually be a good thing in the short run. But this is only because these bottlenecks may not be the most relevant ones to you right now, and if you don't even approach sets, how in the world could it not be the most significant bottleneck of your game? Girls normally don't open guys (and when they do, it's typically because of social proof from you having opened other sets!), so the conclusion is unambiguous: if you don't open, you don't close. And in fact, you don't do anything at all, except staring at people having more fun than you. Fear of rejection is something we all have to face, and I believe a combination of strong beliefs and techniques is the only way to overcome it (I will post about this later).

So if you truly care about improving, as opposed to only have fun studying theory, focus on what matters to your game right now. Don't make things bigger than they are; if you have a problem extracting girls, don't make it into a discussion about deep limiting beliefs or five pages of algorithms for exactly what to say and do to get her back to your place. Have a heuristic, a template for how it should be done, visualize yourself doing it successfully in your mind until you get used to the picture, and go out and do it. There is no point in reflecting over it any more than you have time to field test it.

Rationalized Attraction

In this post I will focus on a phenomena that I call Rationalized Attraction. To make the insights clear, I'll use two girls that I gamed a long time ago and have now "defrosted".

You see, attraction doesn't vanish with time alone. A girl that was attracted to you a month ago will still be if you meet her again out. As a natural, I gamed some girls over several nights (usually because they would have boyfriends or some form of LTR and wanted to ditch the other guy before hooking up for some fun), and noticed this phenomena. It is interesting because many guys have an intuition of needing "to do as much as possible before it cools down with the girl". So they become needy: they call next day (nothing wrong with that in itself, but read on), try to arrange a gay date as soon as possible, call to check again, or simply because they miss the girl and wanted to "talk". Everything is an attempt to keep her BT high. But BT is usually kept high if you have what I will term "rationalized attraction". To understand the concept, read on.

I've just gotten back from a one month trip to Switzerland. My targets where Styx, HB_dancer, and HB_flight_hostess, both of which are old closes that I met in Australia.

HB_flight_hostess was a FNC that I didn't see again because she was only traveling through my city. I met her at a bar in a club, where she looked as she was in "got nothing to do"-state (a little bit of boredom, mixed with a semi enthusiastic search for more fun). It was more than two years ago but I remember the opener perfectly: I walked passed her, she was looking around, and I look at her with a smile and said "you look sad, cheer up". She smiled directly, and I said "see, that's much better. Now you're happy." Add some nonsense lines, we start making out. Add an hour of dancing, drinking, and talking about absolutely nothing relevant, I'm good to extract: "I'm getting tired, I'm off to bed now. You're coming?". She checks with her friend, she's with some other dude. While they're talking I tell him I'm extracting and hope we won't have to meet again, he tells me it's going well with the other girl and I've got nothing to worry about. Cool guy. I take her back to my place and make her look really happy. The next morning, as she left, apparently I'd told her "see you...never again."

I met HB_dancer months later. I just got to the club with some friends, had ordered a beer with a former student of mine, saw her standing a couple of meters behind me, opened indirectly, stacked, she asked me to come order with her, then went straight to isolation, and 20 minutes later, back to my place. As we sat on my balcony, we had not kissed. The only kino we had was hand holding while walking home, which is great in itself, but the window of opportunity is not going to be closed forever. Guys that make out in clubs find it easier to escalate back home because they feel it's on. When they haven't, they get insecure because they start getting fear of (escalation) rejection. So the biggest problem with escalating with kissing in clubs is a limiting belief, or more accurately, limiting behavior. Just do it. I got up of my chair, walked over to hers while talking, put out both my hands palms up, she took them, I pulled her up from the chair, we started kissing, I took her straight into my bedroom, ripped of her clothes, and we made love. For two nights.

The interesting thing is that the only contact I had with HB_flight_hostess prior to my visit in Switzerland was no more than 4 emails in each direction, that occurred more than two years ago. I got too lazy to keep in touch, but apparently that wasn't a problem: I sent her an email letting her know I was coming to Switzerland, telling her it would be fun to meet her again, she agreed and invited me to her place. With HB_dancer, I'd been in touch with her the whole time (little more than a year), although we only sent about one email per month to each other. Four days before my arrival, she emailed me letting me know she's just hooked up with some guy and they were getting serious now. She referred to him as her "boyfriend", and said she didn't want to cheat on him. I told her that's fine, and thanked her for letting me know in advance. She then suggested we should meet in her home town rather than the city where she and her boyfriend is studying, her parents would not be in the house anyway. It doesn't take too much thought process to figure out she has pretty much planned everything so that she can cheat if she would want to, avoiding any potential conflicts with her boyfriend.

I started by meeting HB_dancer for a weekend. My plans were never to sleep with her, if she has a boyfriend and she's happy with him, I'm fully satisfied having a sweet and helpful guide and cook in Switzerland. I decided to leave it to the situation, but as always, to learn anything I could from it. We met at the train station and went straight back to her house. She pulled out some wine and beer for dinner, and we kept drinking afterwards. We have lots to talk about: she's a psychology student and she knows I'm a PU coach (she knew that already in Australia). As the hours went by, it was time for bed, and we crawled down in her double bed. After some low energy convo and light hold kino, I started escalating and we end up kissing. As I'm undressing her, she's resisting me because of her boyfriend. I'm all in for shagging her, but I can't be fucked trying to win her over as we're only going to see each other for a weekend. I don't need to "up my number" by one, and shagging her wouldn't even do that. Besides, I'm only slightly more horny than sleepy. And of course, girls that are really keen to have sex with you are so much more of a turn on than girls who hesitate. Girls that like me have good taste, and girls with good taste in men is something I value. Having said that, it's actually very possible that I could have closed her had I done proper seduction game (what you would do with a girl you haven't closed before). Remember, she brought me to her home town to avoid problems with her boyfriend, also opening up the opportunity for anything to happen. They had only recently met, and to be honest, she didn't really care about morals when it comes to staying faithful. So what was it then? Imagine a girl that has been single for a couple of years. Before that, she used to be in a healthy relationship. They were both in love, and everything was well. Since then, the closest thing to love she has come to experience is short termed FB relationships, lasting at most a month. The sex may be good, but something is missing, and that something are the emotions she used to experience back in the old days, when everything was easy. Now, although not yet in love, she's just found someone that has the potential to give her all these wonderful feelings again. And by cheating, she's not afraid of being unfair to him, but that she may prevent herself from developing stronger bonds with him. This is precisely why HB_dancer doesn't want to cheat.

Now, I'm only telling you this to make an interesting story, with all the irrelevant complexities of life. As far as game goes, the reasons for sexual resistance (what we would normally attribute to ASD) are uninteresting, because the solution is always the same: get more compliance through attraction or escalation (through rationalization), use this compliance to rip up a window of opportunity, seize it. You're escalating in bed and you know you may soon get some resistance, either create more attraction (in this case by making her more horny) or put up a middle hoop before going for sex (put your cock in her mouth and let her do some work). That's why naturals don't care about the reasons for ASD or any resistance: they either already know, or they know it doesn't matter. Besides, asking is definitely not the kind of polite impression you would want give when in bed with a girl. The best way I can put it to you: the answer she will give you is usually just some rationalization bullshit anyway. She doesn't want to have sex because she doesn't have enough compliance; that and how to create universal compliance is all you need to know. Generally, there aren't different seduction strategies depending on her "customized problems", that's just retarded gay thinking (indeed, a nice guy strategy).

After a good weekend of Swiss meals and sight seeing, I leave her at the train station to meet HB_flight_hostess. She needs to get some stuff back at her parents house before going to work (yes, you've guessed it Einstein, she's a flight hostess). We take the train back to her parents house. Now, I don't have any problems with parents. I've met quite a few by now, and they always like me. I know how to carry myself around parents: my own coached me in that regard. It's mostly a dilemma: the trick is to not be nervous around them. When you're relaxed, confident, yet respectful to them, they get a good impression of you, and there's no need for that extra bed they may otherwise suggest. Now I have nothing to be nervous over, because her parents surely understand what this is about, I know they do, and they know I know. So there's no need to play games! Me and HB_flight_hostess share two bottles of wine, her older brother joins us for a while. Same principle applies to him, although I would guess most guys find brothers easier than fathers.

After we've emptied our bottles we go out on their balcony for a smoke. They have all gone to bed upstairs by now. We smoke and I tease her a little, there is definitely attraction. I start kino escalating and we kiss. Finish cigarette, move upstairs, she trips and falls to the ground as we enter her room, conveniently waking up the whole floor minutes before we start having sex, removing all the plausible deniability they wish they could have. We travel around Switzerland together for a week, visiting various places. Nice.

I find it fascinating that you can meet a girl, just for one night, have sex with her, then no contact, two years later, you send an email, go visit her, and immediately resume where you last finished. This is because of rationalized attraction: she already know she was once attracted to you, in this case because you had sex (one of the strongest causes of rationalization), and so she knows she would be attracted to you once more if you met. Attraction gives compliance, so she is pretty much rationalizing compliance to your favor!

To make my point clear, consider the following scenario: same girl, you FNC her but never have time to see her again (because she lives far away), then you visit her a year later. In the first scenario, you've kept in touch with her the whole time. You've actually become quite good friends. In the second scenario, there has been no contact whatsoever, except for a couple of emails or text messages after that one night you had together. Everything else being the same, in which scenario do you think you'll have better chances of ending up having sex with her again? I think that most guys here, having some experience and intuition to reason with, would correctly answer "second" (some may say "it doesn't matter"). The difference is obviously that in the first case, you risk ending up in the friendship zone. But what if you didn't have too much contact, and when you did, it was short but intensive, filled with tension? With regard to future sex relationships, that would be better than friendship contact, but would it be better than none at all? Probably not, and the explanation is precisely rationalized attraction: the more contact you keep with the girl, the less reason you will give her for rationalizing attraction when she agrees to meet up with you again. If the last thing she recalls before seeing you again was that exciting and sexual visit in your apartment, the unconscious logic is of course that she must have been very attracted to you, you got along really well, and since she's now seeing you again, things haven't changed. After all, how could they have, considering she hasn't heard a word from you since then? If the last thing she recalls before seeing you again is the email where you told her you got a new job and threw a party to celebrate, however fancy it may be, she's now seeing you again because she knows more about you now than before. It's not that memory of the sex in your apartment. That's forgotten by now. It's this "deeper" friendship you've been building throughout the year. And why ruin the friendship with sex? Obviously, anything but real flesh-to-flesh contact prevents us from doing physical escalation, which is central to sex (being the top of the kino-escalation pyramid). The more time a girl interacts with us without physical escalation taking place, the more she rationalizes that we are meant to be friends (you have missed your windows of opportunity). The fact that physical escalation couldn't possibly have taken place is a logical truth our attraction mechanism knows nothing about, neither does it care.

So far, I've been assuming that the girl agrees to meet you again in the first place. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that some form of contact would be preferential to getting compliance enough to meet again? Yes, it would. That's why I emailed HB_flight_hostess a week before coming: enough to exchange a couple of emails, but the implicit frame is "we're going to meet, it's going to be fun, so let us sync rapport now", not "we're perhaps going to meet, let us find out whether we should, let us see if we have rapport". The latter frame could have occurred if I would have contacted HB_flight_hostess two months prior to my visit. With only a week of forward planning, I exempt her from that consideration. The optimal solution, is to start building rapport from an implicit "we're going to meet when I get there" frame, without having had any contact before. Before taking too much credit, I should be fair and admit that I didn't actually had these ingeniously manipulative ideas in my head as I contacted her: I was way too busy watching South Park and writing my book; as far I'm concerned, it's mostly a coincidence that I contacted her a week before coming down. But isn't it relieving to know we can keep focusing our energy on getting drunk, having plenty of sex, and do whatever else may occasionally come to mind, without any concerns the next day, week, month, and year, then simply drop an email before coming down for a visit, knowing that this is not only a solution that works, it may also be the best?! Nice guys do indeed finish last.

You may also note, that meeting an old FB would not work if you lived in the same city but didn't have any contact for a long time. As in the case where you live far from each other, you don't have any contact. But it is all about the explanation she will give herself for why you don't keep in touch: if you live near each other, you would naturally be meeting each other if there was something special. If you live far away from each other, you can't meet each other, regardless of whether there was something special going on or not. The interesting thing is that this uncertainty is rationalized away into "we had something special" because this gives better feelings that the opposite belief "we didn't have anything special". That in itself contributes to more compliance to meet up again, and as I've mentioned above, once she agrees to meet up again, the rationalization will further work to your advantage by her thinking "I met up with him, therefore I must like him a lot".

Does rationalized attraction work in real time too? That is, do you get any rationalized attraction throughout the course of an evening in a club? What about with regards to day 2s? Different questions, same answer: yes. The fact that you may not be able to go from "hi" to sex in one big step, but may with "hi" followed by some light brush kino on her arms, followed by more general brush kino, then hold kino, kissing, more hold kino (comfort kino), seduction kino, and finally, sex, it might actually work - is a clear demonstration of rationalized compliance. The more the girl agrees to do with you, the more she will agree to do in the future. In other words, she rationalizes that whatever she has complied to is a sign of attraction (interest), and to be consistent, she continues to comply to future hoops. Attraction is necessary to start the escalation process, but once it starts rolling, most guys find it quite easy to get somewhere (usually at least up to kissing and/or isolation). So attraction, escalation, and rationalization are closely interlinked, something we made sure all our students learnt during out bootcamps in what we called the escalation process. My personal favorite example of rationalized compliance is that of sex partner: let us say there is a girl my friend has gamed but not had sex with. Then I game her and we have sex. When I ask her what she thinks of my friend, she will say he's charming, fun, attractive, or whatever, but "not her type". The magic sparkle wasn't there, as opposed to, of course, us. And this happens every time someone I know shags a girl someone else has been sarging. It's not some special magical sparkle of mine. It's the magic sparkle of rationalization. If you think of it, it's not that strange. I mean, what did you expect her to say? "Yeah, I found him really attractive and could have ended up having sex with him, but he wasn't escalating properly or perhaps didn't want to fuck me, so we ended up here instead. Isn't that a cute coincidence?" There's no fucking way you'll hear a sane girl saying something along those lines. This, my friend, is girl psychology at its best. Get used to it, understand it, and use it to your advantage.

Comments from enlightened guys and pissed of girls welcome.

A New Beginning

After six months of intensive work coaching others and running bootcamps, I've finally decided to start focusing fully on myself again. Of course, I have no regrets having trained others: it's been both great fun and very insightful. However, I'd have to sacrifice my own development were I to go on training others from this point on, something I am definitely not willing to do. The choice, then, is obvious: stop training others, move on focusing on the things that matter the most to me, all while focusing everything on me.

The good news is that this means I will focus a lot more on writing stories (FRs), reflections (articles/posts), and challenges (missions). This website will become my personal, this area being my blog which will from now on be frequently updated. The old posts are back (see the label "old posts").

From now on, all my focus will be directed towards my own improvement, and this website will reflect this through it's content: posts, photos, videos. Enjoy.