You approach a woman you find extremely attractive. It goes nowhere. Now you have a theory about your looks, her nationality, the city, your opener and the state of Western civilisation.
Or you get laid once and decide you have mastered seduction.
Both conclusions are bullshit. One interaction tells you what happened in one interaction. If you want to understand your ability, you need to look at your results over time. That was the point of this early podcast on the statistics of getting laid.
Define the result before counting it
For the question I was discussing, the measure was approach-to-close: how many approaches eventually led to sex? A number, an Instagram account and a friendly conversation were intermediate events. Counting them as the final result would answer a different question.
That does not mean everybody must want the same thing. You might want a relationship. You might want to become comfortable meeting people. Fine. Define that honestly. But if your stated objective is to get laid and your spreadsheet celebrates phone numbers, you are moving the goalposts.
There is another distinction. Getting together once and building something that both people want to repeat are different outcomes. Comfort-trust matters. How somebody feels afterwards matters. A result that looks good in a tally can still be a poor experience. Keep the human being in view while measuring your own progress.
Compare like with like
In the original recording I used rough experience levels, from novice through to expert, and illustrative conversion ranges. Those were my estimates from the world I was observing. They were not scientific benchmarks you should use to diagnose yourself.
Even the phrase “hot women” contains a judgement. Your preferences are not identical to mine. The more selective you become, the pool changes. Your level of nervousness can change too. A man who is relaxed around women he barely likes may behave completely differently around somebody he desperately wants to meet.
Location, availability and circumstances matter. If you change all of those while changing your method, a different result does not tell you which change caused it. Social interactions are not physics. You cannot hold every variable constant.
What you can do is make your own observations less sloppy. Record your activity consistently. Look at a meaningful stretch of practice. Notice which situations you keep avoiding. Notice whether you are inviting women to spend time together or hiding behind another number close.
A smaller percentage against a more selective standard does not automatically mean your skill has deteriorated. Equally, an impressive-looking percentage based on three approaches does not make you a guru.
Experience changes what you notice
There is a second aspect of skill that a single ratio cannot capture: judgement during the interaction.
A beginner is often occupied with himself. What is my next line? Which stage am I in? Am I doing this correctly? An experienced man has more attention available for the woman and the situation. He has seen enough reactions to recognise possibilities earlier and adjust his pace.
That is experience, not mind reading. You still have to listen. You still have to accept a no. Familiarity does not give you access to somebody else's intentions.
Use measurement to give your practice direction and your expectations some perspective. If something repeatedly goes wrong, work on that part. If one approach goes nowhere, do not rewrite your entire identity on the walk home. Go by the pattern of your actual work, not the emotional weather of the last five minutes.
