Most Dating Books/Teachers Aren't Exceptional

[BlessedLion]

The reason i didn't make the title "Most dating books suck" is because they don't. They typically point out major flaws that guys make in dating and help to get better results. At the same time, I've yet to see anyone who really "nails it" with a level of excellence and precision like a consciousness master like Ralston or Wilber would.

 

And i get it, they have more important things to focus on. But, imagine Peter Ralston wrote a book on attraction and dating, it would be completely unlike anything you had ever seen and would likely be extremely powerful and effective. 

 

The closest i have seen to really contemplating the topic in a stage Yellow type of format is David DeAngelo. I recently saw a course of his on advanced dating techniques and it blew my mind the amount of research and integration he did. 

 

But still, i've really yet to find anyone get to the CORE of attraction. What IS attraction? How does it work? Why is it that way? 

Not even just in the sense of so you can get laid, but just for the passion of understanding such a complex topic. Like what is thing called attraction, that runs life itself and supports reproduction and why does it happen in this certain way? What makes some men so much more attractive than others? 

 

Not in some newbie 10 tips for dating way, but really getting at the foundation and workings of it. Also not some bland generic answer like status, height, looks, money- these don't build true attraction imo in any significant way, that's more of a survival response.  And since i've found no one who goes that deep i am going to begin working on it myself.

 

What actually is sexual attraction? How does one master attraction? 

[Valach]

21 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

The reason i didn't make the title "Most dating books suck" is because they don't. They typically point out major flaws that guys make in dating and help to get better results. At the same time, I've yet to see anyone who really "nails it" with a level of excellence and precision like a consciousness master like Ralston or Wilber would.

 

And i get it, they have more important things to focus on. But, imagine Peter Ralston wrote a book on attraction and dating, it would be completely unlike anything you had ever seen and would likely be extremely powerful and effective. 

 

The closest i have seen to really contemplating the topic in a stage Yellow type of format is David DeAngelo. I recently saw a course of his on advanced dating techniques and it blew my mind the amount of research and integration he did. 

 

But still, i've really yet to find anyone get to the CORE of attraction. What IS attraction? How does it work? Why is it that way? 

Not even just in the sense of so you can get laid, but just for the passion of understanding such a complex topic. Like what is thing called attraction, that runs life itself and supports reproduction and why does it happen in this certain way? What makes some men so much more attractive than others? 

 

Not in some newbie 10 tips for dating way, but really getting at the foundation and workings of it. Also not some bland generic answer like status, height, looks, money- these don't build true attraction imo in any significant way, that's more of a survival response.  And since i've found no one who goes that deep i am going to begin working on it myself.

 

What actually is sexual attraction? How does one master attraction? 

Hmmm, I think it's hard to do because I am of the belief that a lot of attraction is even more subconscious than traditional PUA would make you believe. There are the more visible aspects of a person that attracts us such as looks, behaviour, confidence, humor, wit, subcommunication etc.

But then there is the whole aspect of this burried deep down in our psyche such as how we relate to persons shadows, how much they remind us of our primary care givers, how familiar the whole dynamic with their relating feels etc.

I always used to joke that it was not just looks and personality that I liked about my ex. What was driving me towards her as well was that my demons were really attracted to her demons.

So it is a very complex things and some aspects of it are not really that much in our control.

The more I think about it the more I belief that a lot of PUA is essentially playing into shadows that are the most common among woman. Who knows how would the society and the whole dating game look like if we all healed.

Edited Monday at 11:10 AM by Valach

[Miguel1]

Teal Swan has some interesting takes on sexual attraction.

It would be interesting to have Peter Ralston write a book about it. It would be either a masterpiece or a total miss.

But I do find this topic interesting. What is it that truly attracts?

My own attraction has shifted dramatically, the more I have done this work. The more mature and conscious I become, the more I am attracted to depth and maturity.

The more empathetic I become, the more I am attracted to empathy in others; and the more selfishness turns me off.

There is a huge difference in what I am attracted to now vs 10 years ago. Can’t even compare. Even compared to 5 years ago, the difference was huge.

Edited Monday at 01:55 PM by Miguel1

[Raze]

That’s probably because not that many people stay active in the field. Ralston and Wilber has been studying and practicing for decades.

Some PUAs are like that but not that many and usually got stuck in their ways / just rehash stuff.

Most of the ones who were more creative geniuses and had potential to be that level were only active for a couple years before retiring.

Also this topic didn’t have as much development beforehand. Ralston and Wilber benefit from centuries of development regarding spirituality and philosophy.

Edited Monday at 03:52 PM by Raze

[aurum]

@BlessedLion

I have a whole project I'm working on where I will be talking about Tier 2 relationships. Attraction is one of those modules.

Ignoring the really advanced metaphysics, the best way to think about attraction is as a black box of survival factors.

You don't know every detail of what triggers attraction, nor do you control it. But we do have strong patterns.

Just ask yourself: what is the survival calculus here?

When it's positive, the black box spits out attraction. If it's neutral or negative, no attraction or even the "ick".

[Zen LaCroix]

Karisma King is a great teacher who has reached excellence in dating. Look up his youtube channel

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, Zen LaCroix said:

Karisma King is a great teacher who has reached excellence in dating. Look up his youtube channel

He’s biased and doesn’t have a coherent philosophy which stops him from reaching true excellence. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:58 PM by Raze

[Ulax]

Bro Todd V is your man for this. Dude is a wizard.

But you have to get his programs of The System and Verbal Game Academy.

His basic argument is the core of attraction is value + trust.

I'll expand on Todd's view for the rest of my reply.

Value: high-enough caveman high-survivability traits (value also has a flexible component based on girl's life history). Trust: That value being relatable + attainable.

But the ratio and type of value will put you into either lover (i want bro's genes, even if he doesn't stick around; more value sided ratio needed) or provider (He'll protect me, provide for me and my kids; more comfort ratio needed compared to lover).

Now, every fucking thing you do and associated to you implies a certain life history and present circumstance to the girl, which affects her value and trust levels. 

So, for example, its not that teasing is in itself attractive, but its that effective teasing conveys a certain understanding to her of you as having a high-value life history, and therefore high-value traits.

Its like there are three conversations going on.

Firstly, the outward one.

Secondly, one where you're basically saying "I was ostracised growing up", "I was popular growing up", "I move through the world at ease".

Thirdly, "I have social proof" "I have power/ influence" "I am competent", which are base value triggers.

For example, when you ask for a number do you say  "Can i have your number?" or "What's your number?" (Outward layer). The latter conveys the guy either (a) had a very successful life history with women so as to assume the number, or (b) that he was at least strong enough to deal with the social blowback of being cocky, or (c) that he had some other special quality that meant his cockiness wasn't beaten out of him (Second layer). (a) conveys social proof because implied social proof of other women liking him, (b) implies competence through strength implication, (c) implies competence through implication of a special quality.

But, again, all these things mostly matter in respect to caveman survivability. Not present survivability. Hence, why IT guys aren't all having hugh hefner parties. 

------

I don't get how Ralston or Wilber would be able to make even an intermediate model of attraction though, without just copying other models. Its like saying Ralston could've written his great meditation works if he had dedicated his life to studying history instead of meditation. But I also get that its reasonable to imagine an expert in one field of study being able to be an expert in another too. 

I'm interested about this David Deangelo course too. Please could you share the name.

---

Fuck it imma nerd out some more on Todd stuff hahaha.

One of the funniest things I learnt from him is role framing and frame racing. He mentions them without giving them a certain name, so i call them that. But essentially, there are high-value conversational roles like teaser, decider, objector, evaluator, obstacle-maker, leader. And because pre-framing (setting a frame) is much easier than reframing (changing an existing frame) you basically want to get there first. 

So, you can be the one to say you want to take things slow (objection-maker), you can be the one evaluating her, you can be the objectioner (saying something like "Im not sure you and i are compatible)

Edited 22 hours ago by Ulax

[Raze]

4 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Bro Todd V is your man for this. Dude is a wizard.

90% of what Todd teaches is something he learned from earlier teachers 10-20 years ago but just tried to explain with more nuance. Not ground breaking creative genius.

Edited 23 hours ago by Raze

[Ulax]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

90% of what Todd teaches is something he learned from earlier teachers 10-20 years ago but just tried to explain with more nuance. Not ground breaking creative genius.

Which programs of his have you gone through to reach that conclusion?

[CARDOZZO]

I made a post about De Angelo in the past. Enjoy 😎

Post

 

[Ulax]

@CARDOZZO Thanks man. Will check it out.

Edit: Damn that post seems gangster, apart from the preachy and blue-pill replies.

Edited 22 hours ago by Ulax

[CARDOZZO]

5 hours ago, Ulax said:

@CARDOZZO Thanks man. Will check it out.

Edit: Damn that post seems gangster, apart from the preachy and blue-pill replies.

😎

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-13 at 0:48 PM, BlessedLion said:

What makes some men so much more attractive than others? 

Attractive to whom tho? Maybe certain men can attract wider range of women, but it doesn’t mean the woman you want is within that, so better focus on what you wanna attract specifically, rather than  “women” in some general sense. 

Just a thought for now, maybe you didn’t even mean that, but still, someone else might 

Edited 14 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[BlessedLion]

 

On 7/13/2026 at 7:07 PM, Valach said:

Hmmm, I think it's hard to do because I am of the belief that a lot of attraction is even more subconscious than traditional PUA would make you believe. There are the more visible aspects of a person that attracts us such as looks, behaviour, confidence, humor, wit, subcommunication etc.

But then there is the whole aspect of this burried deep down in our psyche such as how we relate to persons shadows, how much they remind us of our primary care givers, how familiar the whole dynamic with their relating feels etc.

I always used to joke that it was not just looks and personality that I liked about my ex. What was driving me towards her as well was that my demons were really attracted to her demons.

So it is a very complex things and some aspects of it are not really that much in our control.

The more I think about it the more I belief that a lot of PUA is essentially playing into shadows that are the most common among woman. Who knows how would the society and the whole dating game look like if we all healed.

 

Damn this is a very deep take, i totally agree. I think that like the majority of it is subconcious communication and the only teacher i've seen touch on that is David DeAngelo 

[BlessedLion]

On 7/14/2026 at 10:40 AM, aurum said:

@BlessedLion

I have a whole project I'm working on where I will be talking about Tier 2 relationships. Attraction is one of those modules.

Ignoring the really advanced metaphysics, the best way to think about attraction is as a black box of survival factors.

You don't know every detail of what triggers attraction, nor do you control it. But we do have strong patterns.

Just ask yourself: what is the survival calculus here?

When it's positive, the black box spits out attraction. If it's neutral or negative, no attraction or even the "ick".

Sounds very interesting, keep us posted. 

 

I am also really intruiged by the "developmental levels of attraction" , I think that attraction grows through stages and just from talking to women i find that some of them have a "Stage Orange" attraction development and some have "Stage Green" attraction development. It's really fascinating. Women in Stage Green have almost no interest in what typical Stage Orange women find attractive and in fact are quite repulsed by it. I find this so fascinating

[BlessedLion]

On 7/13/2026 at 9:52 PM, Miguel1 said:

Teal Swan has some interesting takes on sexual attraction.

It would be interesting to have Peter Ralston write a book about it. It would be either a masterpiece or a total miss.

But I do find this topic interesting. What is it that truly attracts?

My own attraction has shifted dramatically, the more I have done this work. The more mature and conscious I become, the more I am attracted to depth and maturity.

The more empathetic I become, the more I am attracted to empathy in others; and the more selfishness turns me off.

There is a huge difference in what I am attracted to now vs 10 years ago. Can’t even compare. Even compared to 5 years ago, the difference was huge.

Absolutely man, same. I find myself typically dating older women because i find maturity and depth so sexy. The other day i was with this really hot young Turkish girl but she was on her phone so much that i just left. I couldn't handle the lack of presence and shallowness even though things were headed towards sex.

[BlessedLion]

On 7/13/2026 at 11:43 PM, Raze said:

That’s probably because not that many people stay active in the field. Ralston and Wilber has been studying and practicing for decades.

Some PUAs are like that but not that many and usually got stuck in their ways / just rehash stuff.

Most of the ones who were more creative geniuses and had potential to be that level were only active for a couple years before retiring.

Also this topic didn’t have as much development beforehand. Ralston and Wilber benefit from centuries of development regarding spirituality and philosophy.

That's a solid point. I feel like the deep thinkers or creatives eventually tire out on this material. While it's fascinating it's only one component of reality and something like consciousness, metaphysics, awakening is far more fulfilling and meaningful. David DeAngelo is the only person i saw who took it to another level like that discussing the subconcious attraction. 

Check it out, this blew my fucking mind, don't overshare it though bc i think they are trying to wipe all his stuff from the internet: 

 

 

[BlessedLion]

17 hours ago, Ulax said:

But the ratio and type of value will put you into either lover (i want bro's genes, even if he doesn't stick around; more value sided ratio needed) or provider (He'll protect me, provide for me and my kids; more comfort ratio needed compared to lover).

Ah yeah, this is quite fascinating too, i think the book Red Queen touches on this as well. Some men fall into Provider category and others as Lovers and what's really crazy is that even a woman is with a provider mate she might cheat on him with the Lover mate while ovullating to pass on his genes, and something like 10% of people are not the offspring of their "fathers" 

[BlessedLion]

17 hours ago, Ulax said:

But, again, all these things mostly matter in respect to caveman survivability. Not present survivability. Hence, why IT guys aren't all having hugh hefner parties. 

Considering that modern society is just a scratch on the surface of the human timeline, this makes sense. This type of attraction is actually 99% of the subconcious interaction and evaluation. 

That's why women can rationally know "he is a good provider, kind, caring, etc" but subconsciously want the lover archetype