Brad@RSD Samlade artiklar.

[TobiasK]

BY Brad- | September 27th, 2010 at 7:47 AM
I like you. Time to talk about some qualification


Ohhh shit! That’s a good jam. Click on that shit seriously. I used to play in a band and rocked out on the keys Herbie style…

I want more views guys. Grab my RSS feed or get some of your friends to check this shit out. I’m on a mothafuckin role!

Let’s talk a bit about some qualification.


Svall Wrote:

Brad, what are your thoughts about "qualification" ?

I used to think it was necessary, but don't anymore. I even wrote in an article about how qualifying is good.

I think it is, especially when you are coming across pretty high value, you need the girl to realize that you like her.

But I've come to qualify in a different way lately, more authentic.

What I have guys do on program is make a list for what they value in a girl besides her looks. What are they looking for in someone they would date?

I'll give you some of my list:

Non-smoker
Positive
Bubbly
Intellectual
Bilingual
Binge-Drinker
Something extra-curricular like gymnastics/volleyball/running...

So those are a few.

Then when I am in conversation with a girl, this gives me an opportunity to both show that I have standards i.e. I don't put up with any bullshit.... but also to qualify her if she has something I like.

So if she is like "I'll be right back. I need to go smoke."

I'm gonna say something like "Eww, that's gross." What would the chode say? "Aww, that's cool, I don't smoke but I used to back in the day..."

It shows that I have standards. Doesn't mean I won't make out with the girl when she gets back. Doesn't mean I won't have sex with her at the end of the night, but I am still conveying that I have standards.

Another example:

Her: Blah blah blah, life sux.
ME: You're boring. And we are at a club! Let's have some fun!!!


The other is also true, what you asked about, qualification.

If the girl starts talking about skiing or how she studied in Paris and knows French I'm going to respond with "That's awesome!" because it is something I actually value in a girl.

Again, I'm not looking to marry her, but it still helps and is genuine.

And the post response…


Svall Wrote:
Cool great answer on the qualification question. Kinda interesting how you dont think its that necessary anymore, because alot of guys in the community do. I know a.fc a.dam talks about investment IS attraction, in other words qualification is attraction, what u think about that?

From an investment standpoint, it sounds like he's talking about the girl qualifying herself to you... Although I do think investment is important, it's not what attraction is.

Attraction = Value.

Straight up. It's inherent in the definition of Attraction.

I posted an article a while back on how to get the girl to invest, and it is a huge part of my game. But that is more to mitigate LMR than for building attraction.

Attraction is usually fully-developed and taken care of before you get into qualifying. Like in the first 5 minutes. Although I think getting a girl to invest and qualify herself HUGELY solidifies that attraction.


TheHitter! Wrote:
What are some good ways to "push" vs "pull" - there's a lot of techniques for "pull"ing i.e. escalate, SOI, qualify, whatever. I'm looking for some good ways to "push", old school stuff like negs and takeaways have never worked for me.

btw, these articles are awesome - thanks for doing this.

Push vs. Pull comes from the "having standards" technique that I mentioned earlier in this article. It's fucking sick and truly authentic. It was in response to Svall about qualification...


Steve-0! Wrote:
Brad- Can you breakdown how you fulfill a broad range of emotions in an interaction.. alexanders model. I am really good at pumping positive emotions into a girl ... but she already has all that stimulation at night.. How do you hit the full range of emotions. Thanks!

The negative comes from takeaways, like I'll go to take a piss, go help a student, go grab a beer...

Sometimes jealousy plotlines... Usually I don't actively create these, but they happen organically after you have a couple sets in a given venue.

And the one that comes up the most frequently again is having STANDARDS.

She says something I don't like... Call her out on it.

"Ew, you smoke!" "You're boring."

It's nothing forced. It's authentic. I'm a man with standards. I'm high value...

Also for how a girl talks to you... If she isn't paying attention I am gonna yell "Hey! You have bad eye contact!!"

When people talk to me, they pay attention. And I don't put up with bullshit.


Now let’s get personal!


Steve-0! Wrote:
How does your BC compare to says other instructors? I have taken one with ozzie and it seemed to focus on finding what I care about and what I like are sharing that with the world. Making me as uncomfortable as possible.
Nathan's seemed to focus on the introduction to game ... reference experiences, the more the merrier.

I would say my bootcamp is more like Nathan's than Ozzie's. Ozzie takes more of an authoritative frame, whereas Nathan's is more laidback and about personal accountablity... At least that is my take...

Mine is similar in that regard, but I am probably more of a nerd and try to break things down as deep as we can go. Get a really good understanding of how your mind works, and changing how you view experiences, and framing interactions in a way to reinforce very specific mindsets.

My mantra over and over again on bootcamp is "Be high value! Be high value!"

And that is conveyed through the exercises, content, field experience, feedback, gameplan, techniques, QnA.... Everything we do is to reinforce that high value headspace.

And since I have a delusional sense of high value, any questions or ideas that are asked... I let them marinate through my own delusional brain and give my take on it, so you can see how you should be looking at a specific situation/experience, and how you can develop that same mindset...

Now get out in the field bitches!

Until next time,

Brad Branson.