Another Game Concept Vindicated By Science: Kino Escalation

Incoming! The studies providing evidence for the effectiveness of one game technique after another keep rolling in like a tsunami, washing away throbby-veined feminists and mewling omega virgins in their wake. Glorious times for face-rubbing! The latest in this lie-smashing cavalcade is scientific proof for the game concept of kino escalation.

Why Light Touching Can Double Your Chances of Getting a Date

During a conversation, a light touch can impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection, leading to more successful social interactions and even better teamwork. […]

Over the course of that day, three young and handsome French men [participating in a study] randomly approached 240 young women they spotted walking alone and propositioned each and every one of them. To each, they would utter exactly the same words: “Hello. My name’s Antoine. I just want to say that I think you’re really pretty. I have to go to work this afternoon but I wonder if you would give me your phone number. I’ll phone you later and we can have a drink together someplace.” If the woman refused, they’d say, “Too bad. It’s not my day. Have a nice afternoon.” And then they’d look for another young woman to approach. If the woman handed over her number, they’d tell her the proposition was all in the name of science, at which time, according to the scientists, most of the women laughed. The key to the experiment was this: with half the women they propositioned, the young men added a light one-second touch to the woman’s forearm. The other half received no touch.

The researchers were interested in whether the men would be more successful when they touched the women than when they didn’t. How important is touch as a social cue? Over the course of the day, the young men collected three dozen phone numbers. When they didn’t touch the women, they had a success rate of 10 percent; when they touched them, their success rate was 20 percent. That light one-second touch doubled their popularity. Why were the touched women twice as likely to agree to a date? Were they thinking, This Antoine is a good toucher—it’d probably be fun to knock down a bottle of Bordeaux with him some night at Bar de l’Océan? Probably not. But on the unconscious level, touch seems to impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection.

Raisin-sacked anti-gamers who have never left their basement hovels to try out a single game technique on a non-latex woman like to whine “Where’s the double-blind, controlled, blah blah blah scientific evidence for all these game theories?” Well, here it is, numbskulls. And there are plenty more in the archives of Le Chateau. Read them and feel your testicles descend.

Now, a number close rate increase from 10% to 20% is not huge. But keep in mind that the kino they tested was only a single, light, one-second touch on the forearm. Game theory espouses *escalating* kino, which involves increasing the frequency, duration and boldness (i.e. touching more erogenous zones on a woman) of kino throughout the seduction, gradually drawing the woman deeper into your sticky web of wonder.

Furthermore, game is a compendium of ploys, a symphony of stratagems. Kino is but one small part of the whole seduction process. If each game technique — say, negs, or DHV spikes, or body language — increases your close rate by 10%, then the sum of all game, deftly tallied, will surely increase your close rate by more than 10%.

Even a mere increase from 10% to 20% number close rate is worthy of bringing the Light of Game into your life. I think most betas would be thrilled to double their chances of scoring a random girl’s phone number.

Note the following line from the article. It’s very telling:

In fact, in studies in which the touched person was later debriefed about the experience, typically less than ­one-third of the subjects were even aware that they had been touched.

The master seducer’s game is so tight, that women will not even know they are being gamed. That’s the goal you should shoot for. If women are consciously aware of your game, you’re doing something wrong. Game isn’t a hammer to the head; it’s an electrified sensation that meanders just underneath conscious awareness, burrowing deep into the dark nooks of a woman’s hindbrain.

I don’t post these studies for the benefit of accomplished seducers who read here. They already know this stuff works, because they’re out there using it on women. They don’t need studies to tell them what they can see and hear and feel with their own senses. No, I post them primarily to get under the skin of haters. I can practically see them steam with impotent rage as they read the very thing they have claimed to want to read. I post them secondarily to illuminate fence-sitters who are open-minded to the enterprise of bedding women. But really, my first love is sadistically twisting the shiv in the loser mafia. Squeal like a pig, Gollum!

Read Full Post »

Proof That Power Corrupts Absolutely

Power has an effect on the brain almost identical to cocaine.

More than a hundred years after noted historian Baron John Acton coined the phrase ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ scientists claim the saying is biologically true.

The feeling of power has been found to have a similar effect on the brain to cocaine by increasing the levels of testosterone and its by-product 3-androstanediol in both men and women.

This in turn leads to raised levels of dopamine, the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens, which can be very addictive.

We all know women are unable to control their primal attraction for powerful men. A cursory examination of the world around you will aptly demonstrate. It makes sense, if you are a man who loves the company of women, to work to become powerful OR to adopt the mannerisms of the powerful, which can have the same influence on dopamine release as possessing objectively measurable power. The behavior of powerful alpha male baboons has some game lessons for humans.

Power has almost identical effects to cocaine and too much of it can produce too much dopamine leading to more negative effects such as arrogance and impatience.

The claims by Dr Ian Robertson may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph today, he said: ‘Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly.

‘This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power.

Women don’t love *power* per se. What they feel instead is a visceral attraction for the ATTITUDE that powerful men exhibit. Attitude and personality are more important to a man’s success with women than his looks, bankroll or material possessions. You can have the latter but still fail with women if you act like a self-doubting beta. But if you have the former you can succeed with women without having the latter. Of course, having all of it is better than having either, but if you had to choose, choose jerkitude.

Arrogance, impatience, outlandishness, entitlement, aggression, sexual voracity and overconfidence — these are the male personality traits that win women over. If you don’t want to toil for 30 years to gain the social or economic power that will imbue you with these sexy characteristics, you can take a short cut and plug into the god machine directly by altering your personality to one that is sexier to women.

“Just be yourself!” is really girl code for “Just be your beta self so I can quickly screen you out!”

Fuck that. Just be your better self. Then sit back and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of screening girls in and out of your rotation.

A reader writes:

How does the elite justify its consistent fucking over of the beta males today?

Glib answer: Because they can.

Glib Lite answer: They’re power tripping.

Have you ever tried to bring a coke fiend down from his exhilarating high? It’s impossible. Nothing will bring those fuckers down until the drug wears off. And coke is so addictive that you are searching for the next bump within seconds after the first one has stopped working. Same with the elite. Their dopamine rush is going full blast. They’ve been snorting lines off whores’ asses since 1965. Best we can hope for now is that they OD and their hearts just give out.

Game is like the cocaine version of power. Same feelings, quicker rush, less work. I know guys who run their best game while doing coke. Cocaine Game. Combine any two of the three and you are unstoppable. Game + societally high status = ladykiller. Game + cocaine = ladyslayer. Societally high status + cocaine = golddigger glue. Game + societally high status + cocaine = Plunderer of Vaginas.

This is all in the Bible somewhere, isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

The Psychology Of Liberals And Conservatives

In the spirit of deconstructing (heh) feminist and manboob psychology, here’s my stab at doing the same for the underlying psychologies of liberals and conservatives. I’m working under the premise that political ideology is at least partly genetic in origin, which evidence is beginning to suggest may be the case. Whether it’s one gene or thousands of genes that contribute is irrelevant to the larger picture.

Liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as, for instance, a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives are commonsensical guardians, and that manifests as a wariness of untested outsiders and a respect for the tried and true. Neither ideology, if restrained from its worst excesses, is necessarily “bad”; logically, if liberalism or conservatism were really bad and fitness-reducing, they would have been selected out of the human gene pool by now. No, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of low level threats and approximate mental, emotional and psychological equality between men, (such as might be seen in an isolated, small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism (i.e., “foragerism”) is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism (i.e., “farmerism”) is the more “fit” ideology to hold.

Now… did you all notice my reframe in the above definitions? See how easy it really is to throw a snarky leftist back on his heels, in the defensive crouch? Open-minded? How about naive. Adventurous? Careless. Tolerant? Undiscerning. You can do the same with women by reframing their objections. That is a core concept of game.

A reader adds:

Liberals do indeed score a lot higher on the personality trait Openness to Experience. However, conservatives score significantly higher on the personality trait Conscientiousness. Which means conservatives tend to fuck things, including their own lives, up a lot less.

Anyway, if you haven’t you should read up on the work of Jonathan Haidt.  Very worthwhile.

I’m in a generous mood, so I’ll say this about that: a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia. A wholly liberal society, thrilling as it is, will probably go extinct from being overrun by barbarians, or will implode from a lack of attention to the time-tested details that scaffold civilization. Maybe both ideologies are found in humans because a mix of the two maximizes group fitness. /generosity

Liberalism is ascendent right now (spare me the hand waving about Republican electoral wins, who have been forced leftward for generations just to compete), and we can see from that the whole project beginning to unravel under their Open-minded and Novelty Seeking tutelage. Their power has grown beyond their control, and if it can’t be stopped at the voting booth, the boardroom, or the classroom, it WILL be stopped when the less enlightened hordes bring their pandemonium, whether quickly by arms or slowly by alms, crashing down upon the gated communities.

And, man, when that happens, will that be the most satisfying “I told you so” I ever contemptuously dripped like sun-warmed ice cream outta my mouth.

Read Full Post »

Framing Flirting

Overcoming Bias has a post up about hypocritical flattery. RH might feel a little embarrassed getting a link from this universally beloved and highly influential blog, but his post is very interesting for what it implies about successful methods of flirting that men can use to pick up women. (See what I did there?)

Humans usually have a social norm against flattery. Yes we flatter each other, and often, but we usually flatter indirectly. So just how big of a fig leaf does it take to hide flattery? Consider item #1 from a post on “the seven techniques for ingratiation and influence that are most effective in moving up the corporate ladder without looking like a kiss-ass”:

Frame flattery as likely to make the boss uncomfortable. …one manager whom we interviewed noted that he commonly prefaces flattering remarks with such phrases as “I don’t want to embarrass you but. . . ,” or “I know you won’t want me to say this but. . . ,” or “You’re going to hate me for saying this but.” (more)

Note that this approach makes the praise seem no less glowing, and it offers little reason for observers to less suspect the praise was designed to gain favor. So how could flattery without this addition be unacceptable, yet flattery without this addition be acceptable?

This example suggests that the key social norm is that you should not encourage others to flatter you. While there is a weak norm against praising others to gain their favor, the stronger norm is against your explicitly rewarding others for praising you. So by directly claiming that someone is not encouraging you to praise them, you declare them innocent of violating the key social norm against encouraging flattery from others.

The key to effectively flattering your boss (or any higher status person who could be useful to you) is to clear him of suspicions that he may be encouraging the flattery. Similarly, the key to effectively flirting with a girl is to clear her of suspicions that she may be encouraging your come-on.

Girls know better, of course, that when they pretty up their faces and flaunt their bodies they are encouraging come-ons from men, and hopefully the right kinds of men. But that doesn’t mean they want to be reminded of that grimy little fact about their natures.

Girls are very sensitive to being thought easy or slutty (and with good psychosexual reason). Cloying flirtations that are tacitly sexual run the risk of triggering a girl’s anti-slut defense. There is also the quirk of the female hindbrain that she values, admires and, yes, feels more physical attraction for the man who does not make himself too readily available. Chicks dig chasing aloof alphas. A man’s conspicuously flirtatious proposition is more likely to lower his value than raise it.

Thus, the best flirting is a type of anti-flirting; flirting without directly signaling that you are flirting. Or without signaling that sex is on your mind.

A few examples:

“I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, but you look like someone who’d be cool to talk to.”

“I don’t consider myself in the market, but if I was, I’d say you’re kind of cute.”

“Why is it every time I just want to say something nice to a girl, like that your eyes are… unique, she thinks I want to have sex with her?”

“I hope you don’t think this is a come-on, but you have a certain grace about you.”

“Don’t be too embarrassed that I’m flirting with you right now. They’re just words.”

The idea behind these examples is that you disarm a woman’s inclination to pigeonhole you as a man angling for her sex. Once the outer labia force field is disarmed, a woman’s inner labia defenses are easily pried, and it’s a small matter to later “change your mind” about her.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of flattery flirting. There are better ways to flirt that don’t require the egregious use of compliments or greasy innuendo. But if you do like to go direct with your flirting, then framing your flattery like the examples above will improve the reactions you get from women. Especially very beautiful women who are used to “suffering” direct and insinuated solicitations from men.

Read Full Post »

How Not To Frame A Text Exchange With A Sexually Regretful Girl

The reader from yesterday’s post who wanted to know how to parry a girl he banged who dumped the “I have a boyfriend” excuse on him, has responded with a follow-up.

I replied before I read any of the advice on here. For those who are interested, here is the resulting conversation. I went, uh, a little too raunchy and was too eager. I thought she’d be into it after how she was in bed. Good lessons for the future when it might matter.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times
(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4
(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

[in the future, I should just stop here and say nothing / right / huh?. But I felt like I was doing good so I ran for it and fumbled the ball]

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation
(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Unfortunately, the reader did not have the benefit of the advice found on this blog when he attempted to re-game this cheating slut (by her own words). If he had, I’m convinced the girl would have acted more positively, and another bang would have been in the cards. Now, I doubt it will ever happen with her.

First, let me remind the reader that it takes at least three vigorous bangs to oxytocinally bond the typical urban slut to his cock and only his cock. And the sluttier the girl, the more bangs will be required before she is entranced by your testicular essence. Only 18 year old virgins and desperate fatties bond sufficiently on the first bang, unless you are a super alpha, in which case the merest eddy of your hot breath on any woman’s neck will be enough to spoil her for all other men.

It seems obvious now that this girl was deep into anti-slut defensive territory, and fearful of her reputation. When the reader assumed her further acquiescent defilement he only pushed her more into her turtle shell. Let’s break this exchange down.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt

I think she bit through his reply to the juicy, sour grapes center. And of course, she savored it:

(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Interestingly, she responded with TWO texts in a row, the second of which was her qualifying her desirability to him, a glaring admission of insecurity. This is not the norm from girls who really want nothing more to do with a guy. Typically, one shutdown text, and then radio silence is what you’ll get from girls who feel nothing but indifference. The reader still had a shot at this point.

(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4

She was looking for some signs of emotional connection from him to ease her feelings of sluttiness, but instead she got more x-rated porn. Consequently:

(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

This is what a woman’s dashed hopes look like in SMS. This is a woman’s disappointment in text. She left the door open for him, but he did not properly read her signals, and the result was her pussy lips snapping shut for real. I’m fairly sure now that this girl was down for more bangs if he had played his game right.

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation

He’s digging his hole deeper.

(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Aaaaaand…… fin.

I would like to point something out. Notice how her text replies started somewhat lengthy and ended up short and succinct. This is the inevitable progression of a girl who is losing interest. Use this as a general rule of thumb: the longer a girl’s texts, emails or conversations carry on, the more her interest in you is growing. Womanly bloviating = good. Cunty curtness = bad.

The evidence suggests that this girl was, contrary to her IHAB excuse, down to fuck again. Waltzing through the first fuck door is the hardest. It should get easier once you are seducing DTFA girls. She entered the text convo leaving windows open for the reader to sneak in like a ninja. He fumbled at the sill and fell into a holly bush. She left the convo with the windows locked tight.

Suggestions have already been made how this reader should have replied to the IHAB excuse, but that was before we all had the actual follow-up to examine. Now that the reader has gifted us with the real life follow-up, it’s time for the floor to have a go at it. Is your interpretation of this text massacre different than mine? How would you have replied to this girl? Winners with the tightest game announced later in the week.

Read Full Post »

The Liars’ Progression

…and the lords of lies held illimitable dominion over all.

The 21st century Western elite are liars. All of them. This is a judgment I render with absolute certainty. The precise delineation between those who intentionally lie and those who are gulled into false beliefs is arguable, but the result is the same: a thick fog of lies that suffocates intellectual thought and demonizes lovers of truth. Occasionally, a barbed tentacle lashes out from the mist, like the enshrouded alien creatures in the Stephen King movie, and decapitates the brave soul who ventures forth unarmored, in pursuit of discovery. Those watching from behind the barricades have their cowed submission reinforced.

A regime of lies has a life cycle, and it rests on the simple psychological calculus that a strident offense will always overrun a complacent defense. The cementing of the regime proceeds in stages.

Stage 1: A cadre of liars — outsiders and axe-grinders, often — feel kinship with their lies. They believe their own lies. This is how it must start. Much like the master seducer must believe his own irresistibility to win over whole townships of women.

Stage 2: Truth is subverted when trivial nuance is stretched into universal truth.

Stage 3: The motives and character of those who cling bitterly to accepted truths are denigrated.

Stage 4: Common sense is slandered as reflexive primitiveness.

Stage 5: Appeals to emotion, targeted first at women and the morally child-like, then at weaker men, muscle out accessible logic and undefined intuition.

Stage 6: Sophistry with an intellectual veneer is marshaled in service of the foundational lies. Fools are duped.

Stage 7: The ring of lies expands slowly but inexorably outward, encompassing ever-greater whoppers, until a mass suspension of disbelief is achieved.

Stage 8: Fused with the circulatory system of lies great and small, the masses embrace self-delusion and assist in the accommodation of their own viral infection. The alternative would be ego death, which is a pain too great for most.

Stage 9: The liars, having recruited similarly aggrieved acolytes into loose alliances and having sufficiently numbed the populace, ascend to stations where banishment of heretics is possible, and begin the process of purifying their ranks.

Stage 10: Fear marches in lockstep with status whoring, the twin powerhouse Guns of Navarone that keep enemies of the narrative safely penned.

Final stage: Complacency returns to enfeeble the once-aggressors. Weak points erupt along multiple fault lines in the fortress walls. The mentally enslaved shield their eyes from shards of sunlight, and grow restless with questions and illumination. Apathy becomes shame becomes resentment becomes white hot hatred. Vengeance, the second most powerful human emotion after love, strains at its shackles, threatening a blitzkrieg that would consume the regime in hellfire.

Like Smaug, The Lords of Lies rule this epoch smugly atop their pile of riches, wielding unfathomable power. But their plunder is ill-gotten, and easily recaptured. Every tyranny has its soft underbelly, its gem-less fleshy port to the charred beating heart within. Find it, and drive your spear to the hilt. They deserve nothing less.

Read Full Post »

A Devious Reply To “I Have A Boyfriend”

A reader got the “IHAB” line from a girl he previously showered with tender intimacy, and he’s wondering how to respond.

Say you’re texting a girl you’ve recently raw-dogged hard, twice, when in the middle of trying to set up something for later she texts something along the lines of, “That’s good cuz I don’t romance nobody, [sic] for real tho I have a boyfriend, what happened Sunday will never happen again,” (yes she is white, ungh). [ed: we’re doomed]

It’s not that I am really into this particular slore, it’s just that the line sounds so cliche I feel like I need in-pocket responses to it. I don’t have any girl-with-a-guy game.

My gut instinct is to just send “lol” or “cool.” Or “Yeah I know, I’m not going to that bar again,” “I feel ya, I tried to cum in your mouth but I slipped,” or “I hope not, your 5 o’clock pussy shadow hurts, my dick feels like I tried to fuck an angry cat.”

I don’t like any of those replies, although “lol” and “cool” could be used in a pinch as a substitute for something better, and of those two, “lol” is preferred. (“cool” radiates a hint of strained butthurtyness.) And any reply longer than three words is TRY HARD BETAMAX. Unless you’re really witty. (The “not going to that bar again” line isn’t half bad, actually. Still, it’s best to err on the side of terseness.)

I can’t tell whether this girl really has a BF, or if she’s lying and it’s just a garden variety shit test. Regardless, her escapades with you — escapades, mind you, that likely would have gotten her pregnant in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, before the Pill existed! — have probably triggered her anti-slut defense, and she is drawing back into the comforting fold of her blissfully ignorant boyfriend’s real or invisible arms.

The best text reply, in my bombastic opinion, is this:

“right”

Her hamster will frig the fuck out wondering if you were being sincere or sarcastic. Either way, you win. Don’t forget: no punctuation! She doesn’t deserve your attention to syntax. And skip out on the follow-up. This sounds like a case where she will have to find her way back to you.

(There used to be a guy who commented here who would reply to flaky cancellations or IHAB texts from girls with a simple “gay”. I always thought that was a great alpha response. Another masterfully aloof reply that assumes the sale is “gay. next time you’re buying drinks.”)

Read Full Post »