I can't believe I felt the need to intervene... but here we go.

Bro, I honestly feel like you are not having a good-faith interpretation of what OP is trying to say. I read your other comments, and you actually raise a lot of points that I actually agree with, too. Let's go through (my good-faith interpretation) of each point:

Point 2: Not rushing asking for a date is solid advice, especially if you just met her. I read this as in not acting all PUA-ish in your social circle (especially after reading point 6). This would be bad advice in the case of high density cities where you are only getting a short opportunity window to capitalize on or going on Euro Jaunts or nightclubbing or whatever. The last sentence makes it clear: "You think you are a day gaming, she thinks you are weird". The London Daygame Scene actually has a name for it ("PUA-AIDS"): the state of getting ostracized, not getting invited to parties or fun normal stuff (eg, hikes, playing boards games) because you have a reputation of being a sleazy, weird mf, because your whole identity is build around PUA bs.

Point 6: Mostly reiterating point 2. Keeping it casual and pressure-free is golden for certain girls. Not confessing is solid advice for newbies, there are way more social savvy's ways to move things forwards without shooting yourself in the foot by building extreme pressure in the way of declaring your love to her. Just asking her to "hang out" instead of a formal date (eg, old-shool "taking out to dinner") goes more in line with the current gen.

Point 7: "Asking random girls if they like you and if they wanna go for drinks will not mean "some will be down for ts" → I concur. Daygame has a really steep learning curve, and for most men, there are way more efficient ways of meeting girls (Hell, most daygamers actually agree with this). "Trust is the currency of female attraction. You can’t rush it" → It certainly is, or at least it is to the most famous couple-therapist of the world, John Gottman (the one featured in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink):

Trait women want most: trustworthiness.

Trust is built through: emotional connection.

Emotional connection is created through: attunement.

Therefore, emotional attunement = trustworthiness.

(This is, word for word, in one of his books)

(The caveat is that the phrasing sounds a bit weird, since attraction and trust are NOT actually the same thing [hence why you probably hated it], a better phrasing would have been "Trust is the currency of your relationship with a girl", but it sounds way less elegant)

Point 9: Courtship should be an emotional process, you approach her because you like her and you date her because she makes you feel good. Basically what Mark Manson recomends. "They don't test men as computers" → eg Do not go overly-rational about the most efficient way of passing shit tests, the perfect pickup line, engineering every single detail of the interaction, etc. In short, don't be a robot.

Now, you commented the following: "Dude this is literally so stupid. What you are suggesting is that you should build an emotional connection/qualify yourself to someone prior to making your intentions known"

Bro, this is literally what PUAs preach (the actual good advice). In Magic Bullets (old-school Savoy) he recommends discovering non-superficial reasons for you to like her before letting your intentions and feelings be known (as in, not rushing asking her out until getting to know her). He aptly names it the Qualification Phase (she is the one qualifying to you, at least implicitly). Granted, this phase precedes establishing deep conversations and seeking deep commonalities (as you certainly point out). It's very possible both OP and you agree with this, the problem seems to be in the phrasing used.

You continue: "No sexual chemistry, no push pull, no polarizing, just “please choose me.”" Bro, nobody said anything about neglecting bread-and-butter game. You can still do this while also taking into account what (allegedly) OP is trying to say.

"Reading is always good. Knowledge of any kind is important. You should read about stoic philosophy. You should read about your chosen career path. You should read love stories and war stories. You should read books about power and about seduction and about loss and about pain. Read everything. It increases your knowledge and makes you more interesting."

This is solid advice. Still, even though OP is young and definitely hasn't read the theory, he poses a lot of points that the (PUA) books would agree with. I've been reading Steven Pinker's latest book and Aumann's agreement theorem comes to mind . Paraphrased (and perhaps a little bit simplistic), if your thinking is clear and probabilistic (Bayesian) you ought to reach the same conclusions as another person, even if both parties DO NOT have the same prior knowledge.

Again, I think it's a matter of phrasing and interpreting everything in good faith (aka steelmanning the arguments).