14th February 2016
Budapest, Hungary
Many dating coaches offer Skype consultation for a price. One of the opportunities mentioned is critiquing your personal audio infield recordings. I do listen to some of my audio recordings, which is helpful. Though fresh perspective would add value.
I do think that any intermediate or above daygamer is a qualified person to give feedback on another daygamers interactions. Seasoned daygame coach has obviously more abundant infield experience and, therefore, more balanced and nuanced critique.
As I will be immersed in doing daygame for the whole spring, I would like to try this peer-review daygame infield audio recording mastermind. As I envision it working is that two (intermediate daygamer) individuals share weekly an audio recording wit duration of 5-15 mins. Both give a short actionable critique. This idea is especially suitable for predominantly solo daygamer like me.
Audio recordings should be in English. Both fellow daygamer and girl(s) voice should be audible. I use basic earbuds with a mic. I just leave them hanging on the top of my shirt so the mic is nicely positioned outside my collar. Confidential parts are ideally muted but at least, my interactions don’t usually contain sensitive information. Remember this is not a provider game, you don’t share credit card numbers at first meet.
Typically critique should include relevant parts of these:
- open (calm & collected)
- voice tonality (playful, intent, up & down talk)
- language (are you using intelligible English, speaking slowly, is there lulls because of misunderstandings)
- vibe (positive/negative attitude when teasing/challenging, turning girls negative to positivity)
- man-to-woman (any hiding the dick going on, does she know what you want, teasing, challenging)
- holding the frame (buyer vs. seller, your reactions to her shit tests, a girl trying to lead!?)
- self-amusement (do you censor yourself or are you genuinely enjoying the interaction)
- leading (does the interaction seem to flow naturally, are you leader or follower)
- investment dynamics (who is speaking and engaging more throughout the interaction)
- familiarity (does she know something interesting about you that she can later tell to her friends)
- qualifying (do you learn something about her that you like and showed appreciation for it)
- closing (strong)
It should be stated that I do follow predominantly the London daygame model as it is presented in Beginner Daygame but I’ve taken influences from Real Social Dynamics among others. Yet structure and mindset do differ but the previously stated principles are similar. Following a different model is not an obstacle to giving a critique.
But naturally each interaction might be only lacking on few of these components. Critique should be actionable so it should focus on 1-3 biggest sticking points that interaction revealed.
I will be predominantly doing daygame in English until beginning summer. I will be open to doing this until then if successful masterminds occur. The term can be much shorter and should be always revised if it’s still serving both parties. Only win-win masterminds. Questions & displays of interest: vikingflaneur@gmail.com
Viking Flaneur 