Found this article on the Venusian Arts Blog written by Lovedrop, its LONG & ADVANCED but really nice if your getting bored with all the basic stuff.

Craig from DYD once said that “It’s Always On.” My thoughts on this (why it is true) is that it’s due to the non-committal – but necessary – behavior on the part of the woman during the courtship.

While gaming, whenever escalation is possible, continue escalating AS A RULE. Ignore her non-committal behavior; she WILL act non-committal in order to handle her own Anti-Slut Defense. She has to do this (explained below.) Just persist in a non-needy way. As long as she is giving passive indicators of interest (IOIs) – for example she doesn’t make moves, but she still hangs around and waits for you to do something.

Women will act non-committal due to their need for plausible deniability (a.k.a Anti-Slut Defense), but subject to appropriate gaming they will continue to display passive IOIs such as allowing the gaming to continue, and allowing escalation (but acting like it’s weird in order to avoid responsibility for what is happening.)

Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up, like she thinks you’re being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn’t contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being “a bitch” and they say “whatever fuck it then, I don’t care” when they actually could have kept plowing and got the girl.

This is interesting because Anti-Slut Defense thus predicts the necessity of persistence. Notice that plowing is also the accepted solution to token resistance, which is itself merely a more energetic form of this same passive IOI mechanism. Thus Token Resistance can be interpreted as an IOI. If she begins to feel slutty, if she feels it necessary to avoid responsibility for what she is feeling, and she telegraphs this feeling via token resistance behavior, can’t we then take it as an indicator of interest?

Girls also use predictive resistance. For example, why do girls suddenly blurt out things like: “I hope you know we’re not having sex tonight.”

Why would she say this unless she is feeling Anti-Slut Defense (ASD)? And if I am not currently escalating, why does she feel ASD? Where are those feelings coming from? Because she is getting turned on and thus feels the need to avoid responsibility for it. This is how ASD gets activated. This is also WHY we have traditionally known that predictive resistance is actually an IOI from the girl. Girls don’t say “I’m not sleeping with you tonight” to beggars on the street. They say it to hot guys when they are sitting on their couch together watching a movie.

This is one reason why false disqualifiers work…because they eliminate her need to avoid responsibility and thus they DEACTIVATE ASD.

The key here is to be yourself, have fun, and PERSIST. Don’t make her feel responsible for what is happening.

Formula: Due to the previously discussed “a girl will act like you are weird but still give you passive IOIs” mechanism, do this: Smile (relaxed, no big deal, being myself, unreactive) while persisting, and using positive misinterpretation. Just view everything through the most positive frame possible.

This still gives room for routines (such as an opening stack) and calibration (such as negs and kino plowing.)

Everything else still applies…use Demonstrations of Higher Value, use False Disqualifiers, Escalate Physically, Qualify the Target, etc.

Now let’s take a step deeper…

Often we can violate social norms in the field, for the sake of practice or experimentation, and this is part of the learning process. In fact this is important for learning more about how social interaction really works, and we must feel dispassionate while practicing and experimenting. We think of it like a video game.

But in the long term, we still must be aware of social norms and how they affect our game - we have to “surf the wave” and think intelligently about how to exploit these mechanisms, and not hide behind an “I don’t give a fuck” attitude. This becomes especially relevant when you begin to focus more on social circle game and less on cold approach game.

When someone enters your set, and is nice to you, without making social errors, then you are a social violator if you are rude or cruel to him. If his frame is really weak, then he will still lose. The strongest frame always wins. But if he has a strong frame and is unreactive, then he will win, since YOU are the one who is in violation. You are the one who was being rude.

Conversely, if you go into someone else’s set, and you are nice, without making social errors, then the set is under a certain social obligation to show basic politeness. I’m not saying everyone will obey their basic social obligations. But there is definitely something here that you can play around with in the field. As long as you aren’t a violator, then you can just plow.

Why is this important? Because this ethical rule seems to be in operation socially, whether people see it or not. And because there is power to be derived: There is no longer any social obligation to be polite once someone has become a violator. If you enter a guy’s set politely, and the guy starts rudely AMOGing you without provocation, then he is a violator and you can now just ignore him like he’s not there. The more he reacts after that, the more his value drops while yours goes up. You couldn’t have previously done this if he hadn’t been rude - since that would have turned YOU into a violator.

There has been an important question related to AMOG tactics for a while now. The question is, if I am AMOGing the guy, aren’t I becoming more and more reactive to him, thus giving him power? AMOG lines are cool, but isn’t it true that “less is more”, and ultimately the person trying harder will lose even if his lines are better?
Calibration is important:
— You can just AMOG him. You MUST calibrate that he will knuckle under your frame before you attempt this. You must have the stronger frame.
— If you miscalibrate and he retains a strong frame and positive attitude, then he wins. You are now in violation and he can ignore you.
— Therefore, instead of attacking him, you should BAIT him to try to AMOG you. If he does, he is now a violator and you can ignore him. Most people will fall for this, this is why classical AMOG theory works. This is the mechanism being exploited. If he doesn’t take the bait, you are still in the game since you only baited and you never actually violated. But you lost a little “social energy”. Watch out - the more obvious it becomes that you are baiting him, the more you are REACTING to him. The less he takes the bait, the more YOU are becoming REACTIVE to HIM.

Thus my interest in the ability to bait people into making social errors. People will often hang themselves without your help. Other people need some rope. If I can bait someone into violating, then the rules now apply: I can ignore the person without become a violator myself. My value will continue to rise and his will continue to drop. This will also generate attraction in nearby females. Useful?

I think that girls are really good at this. Less socially aware girls will sometimes just violate because it makes them feel powerful because they can get away with it to some degree. But girls with social skills will bait other people to violate. Or even worse: set a double-bind frame and so NO MATTER what you do, you just hung yourself. Have you ever had a girl pull this on you? How about an AMOG?

This is also interesting: if she sets a double-bind frame where I will lose, and if I can’t come up with a good comeback quickly, then I will also lose. The fact that I was silent subcommunicates that I couldn’t think of a good response, making me the loser in the “battle of the wits.” Girls are programmed by evolution to select for intelligence. Also, if I couldn’t come up with a good response, she automatically interprets that her frame must have been correct, that I AM a violator, and that I had nothing to say in my own defense. She can now ignore me AND continue dropping my value if I stick around.

POSITIVE MISINTERPRETATION
This shows why frame control is so important, why I must always have a good answer to a shit test. She is baiting me to disqualify myself. And not only must I have a good answer, but I must be totally friendly and nice and unreactive. Even if she is non-responsive, or acts like I’m weird, or challenges me, I mustn’t be rude, unfriendly, or angry/reactive, because that is exactly what she is baiting me to do. She does this for the purpose of making me a VIOLATOR so that she can blow me out without becoming a violator herself. Notice that when your value is low, girls will get really impatient and try to pick fights so that they have moral justification to blow you out. Girls will also do this when they want to end a relationship. Again, this all stems from plausible deniability.

How to get to her WITHOUT VIOLATING
— Be friendly and nice, without “crossing that line” of being mean to someone. Simultaneously, persist and interpret everything in a positive way. Do NOT get emotionally reactive or you will lose. Just act like nothing is a big deal. Keep plowing, be yourself, and don’t violate social norms.
— Neg. Perhaps this is why Negs have been so hard to understand. I can define a neg as something that conveys disinterest, while simultaneously NOT crossing a violation line. If I say, “I hate you, you fucking bitch” then I have conveyed disinterest. ***But I have also DISQUALIFIED MYSELF by violating. Now I’m CREEPY and people can ignore me without feeling guilty. She’s looking to screen me out anyway, early on especially, so I basically just made it easy for her.

(Some guys walk away from this sort of thing saying, “Whatever, I don’t care.” Look, it’s good to not care. But that attitude should be combined with the social intelligence not to make social errors and get yourself disqualified. We are playing to win, so don’t deliberately hang yourself. People WILL give you the rope - watch out for it. They are baiting you.)

Negs allow me to do very useful things (frame control, false disqualifiers, emotional stimulation, comfort building, value subcommunication) while simultaneously NOT crossing the violation boundary and getting disqualified. I’m still friendly and unreactive. I’m not a violator. And as long as I keep plowing, she can’t blow me out.

This may be what some players are talking about when they say that people can’t blow them out of set anymore.

Ways that SHE will try to BAIT YOU to violate
— Her friend is rude to you. You are rude to her friend. Now the target can treat you like a violator and it’s “not her fault.” Don’t take the bait.
— Her friend runs over and they scream and hug. Now they have created a new shared frame together. If I bust in, in a reactive way, I am now a violator. If I stand there like a dork, I feel stupid and start to panic. The social pressure is building on me… I can’t leave and I can’t stay. Eventually I slink away with my tail between my legs. Notice, meanwhile, that Mystery’s solution FOLLOWS SOCIAL NORMS: First you cut your thread (appropriate) then you ask the target to introduce the obstacle (appropriate). Mystery says, “Uh, introduce me to your friend, IT’S THE POLITE THING TO DO.”
— A girl says, “Well thanks for coming over to say hi, it was really nice to meet you.”
— A girl says, “Um, we haven’t seen each other in a long time, we’re having a really important conversation right now.”
— These are interesting because now if I stay, I am a violator EVEN IF I CONTINUE TO BE NICE. They have set the frame that merely being there makes me a violator. In my experience, the best solution here is a massive value demonstrator combined with a false disqualifier: “Oh we’re actually on our way over to Skybar, I just wanted to stop and say hi first…” (stack forward.) Another suggestion for this, of course, is to come in with massive value and a false time constraint in the FIRST PLACE, so they don’t bait me in this way. For example, you get a lot less of this bullshit if you have first been building your value in the room, for example by parading a hot girl around. Ever notice that the other sets open easier once you have been parading a hot girl around?

Interesting: When Mystery handles an interrupt, he reminds the target that it’s “the polite thing to do” to introduce him to the new obstacle. Now the target HAS TO DO IT, or she would be a VIOLATOR if she didn’t. So she does. Interesting that normally she might pretend she didn’t think of it, absolving herself of responsibility. She just “forgets” to introduce you to her friend, and then she leaves you standing there for 10 minutes while she talks to her friend.

If she leaves you standing there and you eventually leave, it’s still “not her fault.” But once you make it explicit that she’s being rude, now she HAS to follow social norms, so she does. There are thus cases where you can use your knowledge of social norms to force people to comply with them where they might normally pretend they didn’t notice. This is why social norms are so interesting - because people DO follow them, whether they have full knowledge of them or not. But having that knowledge gives you an edge.

— Thus the strategy should always be to assume actual human behavior, and escalate accordingly, while simultaneously conserving plausible deniability and also paying lip service to the typical social programming.

— The phrase “it’d be rude not to.” (I’m referring to the British usage of this term. For example, “Should we stop by the pub on the way home and have a drink? It’d be rude not to.”) This phrase absolves yourself of responsibility by implying that you would be a violator if you didn’t. Remember, people can’t blame you if there is a higher authority. This phrase uses social norms as a higher authority.
— Interesting that the phrase can ALSO be used in cases where it’s NOT LOGICALLY TRUE, but will still have the same effect regardless. The more obvious it becomes that the phrase is actually not appropriate, the more funny it becomes when you use the phrase. What is the tie-in here with humor? For example, what if instead I said, “I suppose I should bite you on the neck and whisper dirty, dominant nothings into your ear. It’d be rude not to.” In this case I am conserving plausible deniability while escalating. I’m also pumping buying temperature at the same time. Both mechanisms are likely to result in much higher levels of compliance.

Some general principles:
— Don’t ever violate a social norm since it causes you to lose power. (Unless you are doing some specific practice or experimentation.) Always keep the “high ground” morally. Always be unreactive, friendly - and plow.
— If someone BAITS you, continue to be unreactive, friendly, and plow.
— If someone VIOLATES you, you can now AMOG him and IGNORE him without becoming a violator. Ignore is preferable since it is less reactive. A single good AMOG line can be useful as well depending on context.
— You can also BAIT someone into violating. If he takes the bait, he is now a violator and the above now applies.
— If he doesn’t take the bait, then calibrate: Can you bait him again? If you keep it up, he will gain an edge because you are reacting slightly more. The most you can do beyond this is just be unreactive, friendly, plow, and ignore him as much as possible without going into violation.
— If you can calibrate that the person has a weak frame, you can just violate him and retain the stronger frame. But beware: now all of his friends, some of whom may be socially more intelligent than him, can ignore you and get away with it.

Back to this paragraph:

Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up a bit, like she thinks you’re being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn’t contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being “a bitch” and they say “whatever fuck it then, I don’t care” when they actually could have kept plowing.

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON is that she uses her facial expression to set a frame that you are weird. *** This absolves her of responsibility of what is happening (so she can allow it to continue.) Unfortunately, this also baits the PLAYER to become a violator. He might think, “I’m not BEING weird, but she’s ACTING like I’m weird. What a BITCH!”
If you aren’t socially intelligent, you will take the “bait” that she was “rude” to you, and thus you will be rude back to her. Once you do this:
— IN YOUR MIND: She was rude for no reason, therefore I was rude back. Whatever. Fuck her. I don’t care. Women are bitches.
— IN HER MIND: I didn’t do anything wrong. He was being weird to me and then he was being rude to me so I filtered him out. Just another loser.

Whereas a guy with a stronger frame will remain unreactive to her bait (since she is actually indicating interest anyway), he’ll remain friendly, and he will never go into violation and thus he won’t get screened out. He can’t get blown out. Now all he has to do is continue stimulating her emotions and escalating.

So she is selecting for strength. Is she trying to blow me out or trying to get with me? BOTH. One or the other will work, either outcome is fine with her. It’s not her fault either way. I COULD interpret that she is blowing me out, and I’d be RIGHT. I could get all reactive about this. Or I COULD interpret that it is ON and that she is testing for strength. And I would be RIGHT in this case as well. It is my own value and my own subcommunications that determine which way she will interpret it. NOT — HER — FAULT.

Other concepts:
Different violations, and different baits, have differing levels of plausible deniability.
Some violations only exist if they are pointed out (”Introduce me to your friend, it’s the polite thing to do.”)
Some baits are more or less reactive. If it isn’t obvious that I’m baiting (”thanks for stopping by!”) then I retain plausible deniability while simultaneously forcing the person to become a violator if they stay. I don’t come off as reactive. If it IS obvious that I’m baiting (”oh that’s a really nice coat you got there. You from the CIRCUS?”) then I’m also perceived as more reactive. If I continue baiting in this way I will become the more reactive one and eventually lose. This is why, when AMOGing, “less is more.” Conserve plausible deniability.
— Always maximize my own plausible deniability, and that of my target, while minimizing that of rival players and AMOGs.

“Can I have a light?” is a great opener (I got the idea from Christophe). It ties in here because it’s a socially reasonable request, and makes the person look like a jerk if they don’t give you compliance. This is why it’s better to use small hoops early on… because the smaller the hoop, the more of a violator the person appears to be if they defy.