THE FORUMS

 @scoowoop

You are pretty much saying "yeah, it maybe true that so and so matters, but cut the excuses and approach anyway, stop bitchin" is that what your saying? well, I DO approach all the time and I DO go out 4-5x a week and I do pull 2-3 x a month. But I do not deny that these factors matter. 

Same thing as being an agnostic vs an atheist. Agnostic isn't religious but don't deny that GOD exists, atheists don't believe god at all

 @paris Boum Boum

those are YOUR reference experiences, not every body elses.
No. When I see an ugly guy pull a hot girl, everybody can see it. So it's not my reference experience. 

I'm indian and I go out 4 to 5x a week.
Cool. 

But at the same time, i go to the gym and hit weights, I wear nice clean fitting clothes and I pull 2-3x a month(not a lot but I pull)
Nice. But as a very logical guy, you should justify the use of the word "but" at the start of your sentence ;) 

You are still using the logical fallacy (denying antecedent/hasty conclusion/Anectodal evidence)
Nope lrn2brain

Argument---> If ugly guy with game pull hot models from night clubs, then ANY ugly guy with good game can pull hot models from night clubs. 
Nope, you are not logical enough. If ugly guy can pull hot models, it only means it can be done. It also means that the proposition "only hot guys can pull models" is false. The negation of an universal proposition is not an universal proposition. 

Problem---> What if the guy has social status/social circle/power/etc etc for him to pull the girl.
 No: what if it wasn't status and power per se who made him able to fuck those girls, but the confidence he draws from power and status ? Then you only need the confidence. That's what game is about.

Jumping into a conclusion that it's his game is a logical fallacy(by using anecdotal evidence)
No. At least if you want to get epistemological on this shit, go read books on logic and epistemology.

Argument-->If someone has good game, no matter what you look like or how little money you have, you will always get the girl(hasty conclusion fallacy)
You are lological. If someone has good game, on average he pulls more and hotter girls than a man with average / no game. He does it by skills, the others fuck by luck. 

problem--->There are plenty of ways to get girls, not just GAME. So to conclude that it's his game that get girls, (is a hasty conclusion fallacy)
Definition of game: the set of behavior and thought patterns that make you able to attract women and fuck them consistently. 

Argument-->I see asian guy holding hands with white girls all the time Therefore it's his GOOD GAME that got him that girl (anecdotal evidence fallacy/hasty conclusion fallacy)
Brologic.

problem--->did they meet through social circle? Is it because of his game? or is it because of his status? there are plenty of guys with BAD game with hot girls all the time, how can you explain this?
If they're making out and going home together, they must be really good friends. 

Look man, I see you have a genuine interest in this shit. But if you reeeaaaally are so logical, why not be really logical ? You don't need to pretend to be logical and go all nerdy on that shit. Yet if you want to do it, do it 100%. Here it seems you are trying to logically rationalize what you feel. But this is not the way. The right method is to get in the field, and test your hypotheses by observation and experimentation. 

Experience shows that the propositions "only hot guys get laid", "only tall guys get laid", etc are FALSE, and there is no way you can twist it. That is out of doubt. Rationalize it the way you want, they are false. How do I know it ? Because you only need ONE occurence of the contrary to make them false. You only need one ugly guy getting laid to make the first proposition false for example. And I saw it happen already. 

Also why don't you count as experiences all those occurences of guys with money / looks / status who don't get laid ? 

Finally, you can see in my first post that I didn't say "this is the truth", my point was rather to point out that to even get the tools to make an informed opinion, you need massive field experience. One of the reason is that reason without experience will only get you so far. The experience must be massive, otherwise you can 't point out which variables, which parameters are confirmed / refuted by experience.
Also it must be massive enough so that you can start drawing your own concepts to make sense of it. You start realizing that looks / height / etc are not the key variables. Sometimes they can explain, sometimes they can't. 

TLDR 
-no need to get super nerdy on that shit
-what Gandhi says is very useful
-if you want to be nerdy on it be it to the max, don't stop half way, the only way is to get massive field experience