Still to this day I get emails about my blog and I really appreciate it but I'm sorry to say, but I dont have the energy to keep the blog updated.. however I will leave it up so anyone can browse the articles and I hope you guys enjoyed reading it.

If you got any questions you can still reach me at psyneh@hotmail.com

Thanks, Psyneh

I know, I know.. I posted it before, but Sebastian rewrote it and I liked it..


Hey gents -

I was cleaning out my hard drive today, going through old docs.
Here’s a piece that was part of a roughed up introduction to a
piece I was writing on Mutual Value Escalation. For those of you
who haven’t heard, it used to be something I was stressing all the
time: In an interaction, winning more via the people you’re
interacting with winning. To put it this way - If you start at a
value of “6″ and she starts at “7″, you’ve got issues, no? Some men
would suggest you knock her down to grab some status. Maybe a +1
you, -1 her. So you go to 7, and she goes to 6, and then you have a
shot. The problem is - she’s now “damaged goods” - you’ve now got a
girl whose not living up to her potential, somewhat insecure, that
might lash back at you. Sure, it’s better than what most guys do -
“Can I buy you a drink?” Which is -1 guy, +1 girl. So the guy goes
down to a 5 and the girl takes a bitchy 8 stance. Now, of course
putting a number to your social status is pretty arbitrary and
ridiculous - but the idea stands.

Here’s the excerpt from the old, uncompleted work:

***

During any social interaction, one of five things is happening:

-You’re winning, they’re losing. (”taking”, being a “taker”)
-You’re losing, they’re winning. (”giving”, being a “giver”)
-You’re both winning. (”escalating”, being a “leader”)
-You’re both losing. (”degrading”, being a “degrader”)
-Nothing is changing. (neutral interaction)

This is what we call “mutual value”. Two people have their value
constantly play on each other. The maximum benefit you can get out
of any interaction will be being a mutual value escalator, also
known as a leader. This will be the methods we teach, though we
will also delve a little bit into how to take from someone’s
expense if they’re being disrespectful or rude. In other words, if
they’re to take from you, we’ll turn the tables on them.

***

To put it into numbers, again, you’re a “male 6″, she’s a “female 7″

Originally:
You: 6
Her: 7

Do nothing:
You: 6
Her: 7

Supplicate/fawn:
You: 5
Her: 8

Supplicate really, really badly:
You: 2
Her: 7

Try to “knock her off her pedestal”:
You: 7
Her: 6

But my favorite is to raise the other person up. The fact is, a
confident leader that makes people always better, always stronger
around him, has his own value perceived to be increased in the
process. If people feel stronger around you, and you carry yourself
well and confidently in the process, then you gain even more.

So mutual value escalation:

Her: 8

She went up… and you’re only a 6, right? Wrong! Improving people
in a confident, genuine way that upholds your standards and doesn’t
supplicate actually increases YOUR value!

So, originally:

You: 6
Her: 7

Raise her value up through high standards, praise, leading, and
showing genuine interest and appreciate for her:

You: 9+
Her: 8+

The numbers are arbitrary and ridiculous, but the point stands -
leading people to be the best people they can be increases your
social value more than anything else you could do. You do have to
have base value to begin with to even start this process, but if
you do, confident leading and raising people up will increase your
value higher than anything else you could do. The only time you
“take” from people - gain social value at their expense - is when
they’re incapable of mutual value escalation. Those people you beat
down as appropriate, or when employing subtlety, use the retarded
look and other forms of minor social pressure and withdrawing your
time. Thankfully, the vast majority of people (including beautiful
women!) are capable of mutual value escalation, and respond well to
confident leaders that guide them gently to being the best person
they could be.

Its been a while since I found a good post but now I did.. its written by Bish from RSD.

The idea of "Unreactive game" has changed my results from someone
who gets girls, but fairly inconsistently and it's all a bit hit and
miss, to someone who has almost unlimited choice with women where
ever I go.

So what is Unreactive game?

Put simply, it is about setting your own standards, rather than
trying to match up to other people's all the time. That is what
living in reaction is, trying to match up to someone else's
standards and ideas (often society's).

So, do you think that living in reaction is likely to make you one
of the 5% of males that get 95% of females?

My answer is no.

Many people actually struggle with the idea of unreactive game.

After all, if they have been going out for awhile they may have a
series of scripted lines, techniques and gimmicks which may
guarantee a result. The girls may actually be attracted to you.

The problem often is a whole bunch of guys like this are suddenly
getting frustrated because they get 95% flakes, or they can't hold a
relationship down etc.

They make the mistake of believing MONKEY attraction is enough to
get them laid (and it will sometimes, though its less consistent in
my experience and is often due to other things, not just the monkey
attraction).

Often the problem is more fundamental than simply using a series of
lines designed to entertain a woman, often it is something to do
with feeling inadequate without the lines etc.

This is where the real problems begin.

When your sense of self or core confidence is tied into a script, a
gimmick or anything that isn't an authentic expression of who you
are, the girls hold the real power because they can withdraw
attention from you at any time, and challenge your identity of being
a Pick Up Artist.

The worst thing about this is you may have done a couple of thousand
cold approaches and you can't even remember what the names or face
of the last 10 girls you met were, but you still need something from
the girls, you still need their attention, validation etc to
maintain your own identity.

That's why you can see so many pick up artists get blown out ONCE in
a club and their state is gone, suddenly they aren't this
unstoppable machine anymore. This is still the same black hole
neediness that turns girls off, just in the form of their validation
of your skills, not because you really need that one special girl
like the average chode.

So what is the answer?

OUTFRAME IT.

You're already higher value than the girls in a club. Don't tie your
sense of self or your identity into what girls think of you.

Have your own values, that aren't some nonsense you saw on TV, or
some hot pretty girl, or some model walking up and down a catwalk
pouting her lips and her fake breasts etc.

Become unmoved by superficial things, focus on what matters to you,
the value you offer, what makes you a cool guy. How you can improve
yourself as a person, to make yourself a better person for you, not
to impress some 18 year old girl in a night club with fake breasts,
fake tan, high heels and a mini skirt.

So the basic idea is to understand what your core values are, not to
try and make them 'inline' with what you think might be attractive
to a girl, but because it is an expression of who you are?

Your own core personality.

Anytime you get drawn into a girl purely because she is hot, and you
wind up doing something for her you wouldn't do for other people in
general, you are buying into her frame, and on some level being
drawn into the same superficial bullshit that is stopping you score
girls like that.

This is something that can be seen consistently all over the world,
anywhere you go.

I speak to many guys who have been going out for a while and they
struggle with the idea of unreactive game because they are so tied
into there reaction creating game plan.

The whole idea of offering value and just putting yourself out there
is too daunting, because they are trying to hold on to this sense of
having "perfect game," or being able to get every girl they open
etc.

This is a super weak idea. Why?

Say you go out 4 nights a week. You open 10 groups of women up. Say
you could get 8 phone numbers. Then you have 32 girls to call in one
week.

You call up all 32, and set up dates for every night of the next
week. Make it so your inviting 3 girls per date, even then you still
can't possible see all the girls you opened.

It is not physically possible to have sex with all of these women,
so why care if they liked you or not?

So you can't have sex with all of these women, and the idea of
wanting to implies you don't have your own standards and values as
you are willing to try and sleep with any girl you open, which
obviously makes you less attractive in the first place.

So, a whole bunch of guys are caught in this cycle of opening plenty
of women, getting plenty of numbers, getting a bunch of flakes and
are no closer to scoring the types or quality of women they want.

The funniest thing is a friend of mine said to me a little while
back, "The idea of unreactive game sounds great, but the problem is
I don't feel I can express myself fully."

My response was "What, when you go ask girls about 3 gay cats,
jealous girlfriends, blonde hair etc you feel you are fully
expressing yourself?"

The penny dropped faster than the titanic.

Before he knew it he agreed with me, and actually saw how weak it
was that he had so much power invested in his material. Last week he
got laid for the first time in ages with "the hottest girl he ever
hooked up with."

No-one ever said being unreactive implied being inexpressive. It's
actually a license to fully express yourself. Put your personality
on the line, build core confidence so you know you have options with
women, and will also carry you through the rest of your life too.

I'll give you a quick note I keep for myself, and refer to if I feel
myself slipping into old habits.

Bish's Cheatsheet 2007

1) Offer Value
2) Put your real personality on the Line
3) Don't give a damn what anyone thinks of you
4) Don't take ownership of other people's reactions to you

Simply following this has skyrocketed my success with women.

It's been a while since I posted so I decided to give you these two posts by Colm O'Reilly, enjoy!

8 Components of True Inner Confidence

Confidence really is thrown around the place as something that everyone needs to have and should develop. “Be Confident” is the main piece of advice given to every nervous guy in the world. But confidence is this ethereal, intangible thing that's so vast it makes it almost impossible to just “be confident“. Despite the well meaning intentions, “be confident” is usually bad advice because the follow up question is always “How do I be confident?” Well, if you don’t know what exactly confidence is, focusing on the how won’t help you much.

So what exactly is confidence, then? Confidence is multi faceted; there are components that need to be mastered in order to have true, lasting, unshakable inner confidence. I break confidence down into eight areas, which cover the all the quadrants of living: spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical (actions). These areas are not completely discreet and separate, but overlap each other. Working on one area will have a knock on positive affect on all the other areas of your confidence.

1. Self Acceptance means understanding who you are and accepting your faults. It’s only after you begin to accept yourself that you can begin to change and grow into the person you want. If you don’t initially accept yourself, you’re constantly feeling ashamed of who you are. Self acceptance also means accepting the level and pace of your growth, and giving yourself permission to be you, and permission to fail. Self Awareness forms a large part of self acceptance, as you develop the ability to notice which other areas of confidence you’re lacking, accepting that, and then working to rectify them.

2. Self Respect: Taking care of yourself and treating yourself right. This includes not just the actions you take but also how you talk to yourself, which is so important it cannot be understated. You’re going to be talking to yourself all day, feeding your self image and subconscious with messages of who you are. Are you going to beat yourself up all day, or treat yourself with respect?

3. Self Esteem is the value you place yourself. Recognising and affirming that you are good enough, worthwhile and valuable. As a part of self esteem, it means not accepting what you consider substandard or second rate behaviour of yourself and others.

4. Self Belief: Trusting yourself and having faith in your judgement, skills, and yourself as a person. Self belief is the thought that regardless of the outcome, you’ll be able to handle it. No matter what happens, you’ll be okay.

5. Self Love: If you think about the euphoria of falling in love a large proportion of that is the same with confidence. You feel energetic, excited, and like you could take on the world. With practice, building these feelings inside of yourself will really boost your overall confidence. Confidence and happiness are usually synonymous, just like love is a powerfully positive and blissful emotion. Loving yourself includes liking yourself. This concept might be difficult to grasp at first, as the phrase “he loves himself” is usually derogatory in today’s culture. I’m not referring to egotism here, but genuinely living and loving yourself.

6. Self Assurance: This is what most people with say when you ask them what a confident person is, self assured. Being aware of your purpose and being the one to validate yourself, rather than looking to others to validate us is a major part of self assurance. A difference between self assurance and self belief is akin to the difference you feel when you say you know something as opposed to you trust something. Knowing includes absolute certainty in yourself. Without belief, however, your resilience to setbacks and loses will crumble. Self Assurance is just knowing that you’ll succeed at what you do, self belief is knowing that regardless of the outcome, you’ll be okay. Both are necessary and complimentary. Self belief is what keeps you going, self assurance is what gets you there.

7. Self Determination is freedom, being in complete and total control of your reality. With Self Determinism you are the ultimate authority in your own life, deciding what your values and beliefs are, and then acting in total accordance with them. You make the rules of your own reality.

8. Self Admiration: It might go against the grain to suggest that people become proud, but I’m not suggesting egotism. I chose the word admiration over pride because of the negative consequences usually associated with the word. It’s okay to be proud of who you are, to acknowledge and celebrate the great things you’ve done and the fantastic person you are!

I’m not entirely sure whether some aspects of confidence are higher than others. I definitely belief that only focusing on one aspect without working on all areas will leave you vulnerable and your confidence incomplete. Self Assurance, Determinism, and Admiration are definitely what people think of as being the key components of confidence, but without accepting, valuing and respecting yourself you can’t possible hope to develop them. I think that loving yourself and believing in yourself permeate all areas of confidence, can be worked on all the time as you can always develop greater levels of love and belief.

This model of confidence can be used as a diagnostic tool to gauge your own confidence. When you feel unconfident you can look at what specific area of confidence you are lacking in, and then work on it.

So if, for example, you feel nervous and unconfident about talking to a stranger, you can ask yourself “what specific area of confidence do I need for this?” Do you think you’re not valuable/worthy to talk to her (Self Esteem)? Are you nervous in case she doesn’t like you (self acceptance)? Can you not see yourself being happy after the conversation (self assurance)?

I’ve spent a great deal of time and energy looking at confidence itself, and not just the outer actions that will hopefully give you confidence, and I really belief that breaking confidence down into it’s component parts really makes real confidence attainable and achievable, rather than this elusive feeling.


When do you have to accept something?

It was pointed out to me that in my post “The 8 Components of Confidence” that one of my statements under Self Esteem directly contradicted what I’d said in Self Acceptance. I’d mentioned that having self acceptance meant accepting your faults yet self esteem means not accepting what you consider substandard in yourself. Allow me to explain.

Self Acceptance involves accepting everything that’s inside your boundary or sphere of control. So if in the past you didn’t commit yourself fully to an interaction or a relationship or felt like you let yourself you need to accept that. Self Acceptance has to do with accepting who you are and who you’ve been. Self esteem will determine what you do going forward in life.

If you see yourself as substandard, inherently substandard, then you’ll feel worthless. If you accept yourself as you are, your value (Self Esteem) will rise, even though you haven’t changed any outward behaviours. In future social situations, deciding on and committing to exceptional behaviour is fuelled by having self esteem. You’re valuable, so you give your best and provide value to others you meet. Self esteem is the cause of your behaviours, not the effect.

So, when do you have to accept something? Let’s say someone is rude to you. If you get angry with them for being rude, you have to accept your anger. Once you’ve accepted and recognised that you’re angry (and that you chose to be angry) then you can move towards a different emotion and state. Before you react to the rudeness, you have a choice how you’ll respond to it.

Think of the anger (or whatever it is you’re dealing with) like a parcel. You have a choice to accept it or not. But once you accept the parcel (have the emotion) you need to accept it if you want to have another, more positive emotion.

Another example would be fear of some situation, say approaching a stranger and starting a conversation. If this thought fills you with apprehension, you’re already afraid and you need to accept that before you can deal with it. If you don’t acknowledge the fear you can’t overcome it. There’s nothing that states confidence is an absence of fear, or absence of any emotion. Confidence involves acknowledging your emotions and actions, and following your own happiness regardless – that’s the definition of bravery.

What about someone being rude to you, do you have to accept that? Yes, and no. Yes, you need to accept that the other person was rude. If you get flustered and get indignant claiming that they shouldn’t be rude and should treat you nicer you’re failing to accept that they were rude you’re suffering because the fact was they were rude to you. By denying the truth you aren’t doing yourself any favours. You can’t change the past, you can’t go back in time (even 5 minutes) and change what they said and did. Another person’s behaviours are ultimately outside your control and by allowing their behaviour to influence your moods you’re giving away your power and making yourself a victim of circumstance.

Once you’ve accepted that the person is rude, I don’t recommend you stick around a let them continue to be rude to you. You don’t have to tolerate the bad behaviour from them. Depending on the situation, you can punish them by walking away and refusing to interact with them, or by telling them their behaviour is out of line. This is not the same as getting upset and complaining to them. It’s simply telling them that you’re not going to tolerate them disrespecting and undervaluing you by treating you in that substandard way.

This can be frightening, particularly if you’re worried about losing that person if they have a lot of value for you. But allowing someone to undervalue you just to keep them around lowers your self esteem. If a relationship isn’t good for you it isn’t good for the other person either. They might gain a short term win from it, but ultimately you’ll both lose. This is not just confined to romantic and sexual relationships, but to all our relationships.

What if it’s not explicit rudeness or bad behaviour, it’s just substandard in your opinion? In that case you’re still accepting their behaviour, you’re not judging. Once you’ve accepted that that’s the way they are you can make the choice as to whether you want that or not. I accept that’s who you are. That’s cool. I’m after something different. Imagine you were shopping for a blue shirt. You see a black shirt. Now imagine you got upset because this shirt wasn’t blue and should be blue. Seems pretty ridiculous doesn’t it. Would you do it? I certainly hope not!

A good question to ask is: What are my standards? What do I want in my life, in my relationships? Spend some time thinking about what’s the ideal behaviour you want to exhibit to the world and who you want to be.

(There are ways of modifying people’s behaviour around you through the use of intention maps, but that’s not the point of this entry.)

Now, here’s the real kicker, the interesting part. If you’re constantly bringing substandard people, behaviours, or situations into your life, you need to accept that you brought them into your life in the first place.

Through your intentions or actions, these things happened. Use it as an opportunity to see how you’re attracting these things into your life. Two things can help: either you were/are unclear on what you were asking for, or somehow you’re blocking what you want.

To sum up:

1. Accept everything inside your boundary/already in your life. Only then can you change and master it.
2. Accepting does not mean resigning, judging or tolerating. It simply means accepting.
3. Self Esteem drives behaviour, it’s not a result of it (like every form of inner confidence)

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.

Been having some problems with the blog design.. might change the design totally or try to fix it.. but if it looks weird in the nearest days, then you'll know why.

After some private coaching with some students & guest speaking at the PUAcademy
Seminar I've decided to announce the second PU-Introduction by me, the first one was 6:th May 2006 which was a success!

I've decided to do something new this time.. Im going to bring my personal wingman Satyre along where we will instruct you with theory and live infield coaching!

This Introduction is for you guys who are NEW in the seduction community and who wants to speed up your learning curve with women.

The PU-Introduction will be held in Gothenburg, and yes you have to speak Swedish.

20/January with 2 seats [no seats left]
26/January with 2 seats [no seats left]

which means you'll get a 2:2 students to instructors-ratio,
since its on short notice it will only cost 1000 SEK!

> Club Fee's, travels, hotel, food & drinks or any other expenses is not included.

Interessted? Send me an Email !