Overestimation Is The Twin Brother Of Overconfidence

We have previously proved that overconfidence — the “irrational” (is it really irrational when it gets you what you want?) belief that you are better than you really are — will bring you more success with women than having a realistic appraisal of yourself. Poon Commandment XI — be irrationally self-confident — was thus validated by science. In keeping with the spirit of the post, Chateau proprietors gloated. Then preened. Then stroked our egos to a glorious mental money shot.

Now comes another study confirming a core conceit of game that finds men who overestimate women’s attraction for them likely have more mating success.

Why men overestimate their sexiness: it’s evolution, study proposes.

Does she or doesn’t she…? Sexual cues are ambiguous and confounding. We-especially men-often read them wrong. But a new study hypothesizes that the men who get it wrong might be those that evolution has favored. […]

The research involved 96 male 103 female undergraduates, who were put through a “speed-meeting” exercise-talking for three minutes to each of five potential opposite-sex mates. Before the conversations, the participants rated themselves on their own attractiveness and were assessed for the level of their desire for a short-term sexual encounter. After each “meeting,” they rated the partner on a number of categories, including physical attractiveness and sexual interest in the participant.

The results: Men looking for a quick hookup were found to be more likely to overestimate the women’s desire for them. Men who thought they were “hot” also thought the women were hot for them-though men who were actually attractive, by the women’s ratings, did not make this mistake. The more attractive the woman was to the man, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest. And women tended to underestimate men’s desire. [ed: if only the poor dears knew.]

A hopeless mess? Evolutionarily speaking, maybe not, say the psychologists. Over millennia, these errors may in fact have enhanced men’s reproductive success.

“There are two ways you can make an error as a man,” said Perilloux. “Either you think, ‘Oh, wow, that woman’s really interested in me’-and it turns out she’s not. There’s some cost to that,” such as embarrassment or a blow to your reputation. The other error: “She’s interested, and he totally misses out. He misses out on a mating opportunity. That’s a huge cost in terms of reproductive success.” The researchers theorize that the kind of guy who went for it, even at the risk of being rebuffed, scored more often-and passed on his overperceiving tendency to his genetic heirs.

Hmm, which other Poon Commandment does this most recent scientific study confirm? Oh yes, here it is…

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

Helicopter meatspin!

If overconfidence is the art of thinking highly of yourself, then overestimation is the equally important art of thinking women think highly of yourself. And, as science and everyday observation inform us, men who are both overconfident in their self-beliefs and who overestimate women’s desire for them are men who score more pussy. You can’t argue with results, even if you find the path taken to success to be unpalatably douche-y.

And for those of you who are primed to erupt on cue about the douchiness of this sort of alpha male behavior, it would behoove you to keep in mind that it is women, not men, who are primarily responsible for the behaviors of men who are seeking mates. If women, as the gatekeepers of sex, did not reward men for their overconfident swagger or their overestimation of their desirability, then we would see less of this behavior among men.

Ask not for whom the douchebag smirks; he smirks for thee.

This study should also throw a bucket of cold ice on a slew of feminist shibboleths. It turns out “no” actually means “keep trying, and you increase your odds of getting between my legs”. And you know that all too common and irritating feminist bleat — one you hear conspicuously often from sluts and slut glorifiers — that unwanted male attention is akin to potential rape? Well, if this study’s conclusions are any indication, men who presume their attention is wanted do better with women than men who humbly bow to their place in the mate hierarchy.

That sound you hear is a million hamsters wheezing for breath.

This post, and the one before about overconfidence, are really exegeses on the rich, creamy pith of game. Every master seducer, every natural who seemingly beds women with the same ease that a sexless nerd drone inserts a memory stick, shares these two traits in common: they have a bottomless well of self-confidence, and they approach every girl as if she can’t wait to experience the pleasure of their company.

TRUE

OR

NOT.

This is the final destination of rock solid inner game. The moment you stop second-guessing your worth, the day you start assuming every girl wants you, is the point in time of the seduction singularity that propels you into a world — a secret society, as one noted pickup artist famously put it — where the mystery of women is made pedestrian and the journey to the center of their hearts becomes as uneventful as a daily commute.

Funnily, the author of the study — a woman, judging by her name — was so scandalized by the implications of her findings that she came to offer advice completely at odds with her study’s conclusions.

The research contains some messages for daters of both sexes, said Perilloux: Women should know the risks and “be as communicative and clear as possible.” Men: “Know that the more attracted you are, the more likely you are to be wrong about her interest.” Again, that may not be as bad as it sounds, she said-“if warning them will prevent heartache later on.”

Let me see if I have this right: men who presume women are interested in them get more sex. So this means men should stop presuming interest from women. Gotcha! You gotta love the female thinking process at work here, which basically amounts to “men should behave against their interests so that women may maximize their interests”. No, Carin Perilloux, a more sensible conclusion to draw from the study is that men should continue doing that which gets them the most sex, your tender equalist sensibilities to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, even smart chicks have hamsters. In fact, their hamsters are supercharged. Better, stronger, faster. Which means more opportunity for a man with game to spin their wheels.

Read Full Post »

Beta Maleness Is The Real Marriage Killer

Adultery can kill marriage dead. So can sexual withdrawal or the death of a child. Now attention is being drawn to nagging, the tool in trade of the self-entitled shrew.

Nagging—the interaction in which one person repeatedly makes a request, the other person repeatedly ignores it and both become increasingly annoyed—is an issue every couple will grapple with at some point. While the word itself can provoke chuckles and eye-rolling, the dynamic can potentially be as dangerous to a marriage as adultery or bad finances. Experts say it is exactly the type of toxic communication that can eventually sink a relationship. […]

It is possible for husbands to nag, and wives to resent them for nagging. But women are more likely to nag, experts say, largely because they are conditioned to feel more responsible for managing home and family life. And they tend to be more sensitive to early signs of problems in a relationship. When women ask for something and don’t get a response, they are quicker to realize something is wrong. The problem is that by asking repeatedly, they make things worse.

The thousand-yard stare. I like to call it the lifeless gaze of surrender. Or the optical tomb of doom. You see it all the time on the faces of beaten down men married one too many years to fat, insolent wives. Many are quick to blame nagging as a source for this post-mortal condition, but to understand nagging you have to get at the root of the problem: the emotional letdown that compels wives to nag in the first place.

Women don’t nag out of the blue. Nor do they nag when they aren’t “getting their requests fulfilled” as the experts like to claim. And women don’t nag because of some nebulous, ill-defined leftie assertion that they suffer under the weight of social conditioning.

No, the root of it is simple: wives nag because their husbands have turned beta. Less succinctly, their husbands have become weak, enfeebled, grasping, defensive, sycophantic, solicitous “yes dear” yes-men. Strong men — alphas, you bet — almost never elicit the nagging response from their wives or girlfriends, and they aren’t exactly bending over backwards to do 50% of the housework or scrambling to fulfill all requests in a timely manner. The difference is that women never feel a need to nag an alpha lover with innumerable trivial demands, because these women who are so lucky to be with willful men have not had their sexual attraction replaced with the cold, dispiriting mentality of a schoolmarm overseeing errand boys.

Any man who takes the “experts'” advice and begins promptly responding to his wife’s nagging, thinking that resolution of her frivolous demands will resolve their marital issues, will only get more nagging, and more firmly shut legs, in return.

On the other side of the equation, the deteriorating wife syndrome explains many cases of nagging as well. Wife gets fat, old and ugly, husband loses sexual and romantic interest, wife responds by nagging to provoke signs of life from listless hubby. And the therapists and counselors say “just do what she says and all will be better”. What fools. This kind of nagging will never go away until the husband makes clear, one way or the other, that his wife’s physical decline will not be tolerated by him. A happy wife with a good body and an alpha husband is a wife who will rarely experience the incipient female compulsion to nag.

Read Full Post »

Spot The Alpha Male

Which one is the alpha male? A lot of times — an uncomfortable amount of time for most equalists who give it a moment’s thought — you can judge a man’s character simply by looking at him; his expression, his posture, his general vibe. Don’t be thrown by the proximity of slutty ladies. Who looks more like an alpha male to you? And then ask yourself, why does he look alpha?

The photo comes from this story. You’l discover that the guy who looks alpha inevitably attracts his quarry, leaving the beta a broken man, just like millions of betas before him, and family reunions will never be the same. Also, one of the all-time great negs is buried in the article.

I sat with Darren on the sofa with a glass of wine, and suddenly he turned to me and said: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen you looking this attractive.”

That was a Federer backhand right there. Naturally, she lobbed her pussy in return.

I’ve wondered how fathers of sons with pretty girlfriends handle their presence in the household, particularly when the fat wife waddles by to clarify the stark difference in mate value. I know I’d be going for it if the chick was dropping indicators of interest like left-wing Canadian academics drop scientifically flawed, axe-grinding studies.

Read Full Post »

The Parable Of The Smart Birds

This is not mine. Jim Bowery, a commenter over at The Inductivist (a blog I occasionally indulge), tells the parable of the smart birds manipulated by the genius birds. I link to it because it is very good in that way parables are supposed to be good: by illuminating ancient and immutable dynamics in human social relations and hinting at the lessons therein.

Once there were 3 classes of birds of a feather: Dumb birds, Smart birds and Genius birds. There was also a genius bird of a different feather hanging around. All summer the genius bird of a different feather went around to the smart birds of a feather telling them how ridiculous it was to fly south for the winter — that these atavistic instincts were a terrible legacy from “the bad old days” and gave very sophisticated-sounding arguments that the smart birds of a feather couldn’t quite understand but understood quite well that they’d better pretend to understand lest they be accused of being dumb birds.

Fall cometh. The dumb birds fly south to the derision of the smart birds. The genius birds of a feather think, “I’ve heard the arguments about flying south for the winter being only for dumb birds, but where really do these feelings come from? Could they have survival value? Could the genius bird of a different feather have a conflict of interest?” Even before thinking the answers through, the mere doubts raised were sufficient to motivate flying south. The smart birds of a feather, hearing these doubts raised by the genius birds of a feather proceeded to attack them as “dumb birds”. They felt superior to the genius birds of a feather. Some genius birds of a feather were even injured enough to stop them from being able to fly south.

Winter hits. The smart birds of a feather die. The injured genius birds of a feather die. The genius birds of a different feather turn out to have an adaptation to cold weather. Spring comes. An evolutionary dynamic reveals itself…

The smart bird parable has much to tell us about intergroup competition. “Flying south” is a stand-in for the metaphor of your choice — drug use, single parenthood, mass immigration — and the group can be however you define it, by class, race or religion. It isn’t a precise explication of contemporary social patterns, but what it does well is get at the rudimentary compulsion which drives group antagonism, and the expedient alliances that serve group self-interest and buttress group self-identification.

Read Full Post »

Not All Bodies Are Good Bodies!

A delusional feminist (but I repeat myself) who started a Facebook group called “Pinup Girl Clothing” (don’t ask, it’s stupid), has uploaded a photo of five women with less than ideal bodies and a helpful caption explaining her reason for doing so:

There’s another one of those “this is sexier than this” photos going viral right now, so we’d like to offer an alternative. ALL women are “real” and there is no wrong way to have a body. ♥ Vanessa

The two things feminists hate most: standards, and men who make no apology for their sexual desire.

Let’s have a look at that photo demonstrating the equivalence in attractiveness between women of… unconventional body shapes:

What we have here, from left to right:

1. dumpy, hipless plain jane tatted up to distract from her prepubescent boy’s body
2. morbidly obese cow
3. thin chick whose torso is stretched too long in proportion to her legs
4. obese behemoth
5. masculinized cougar

What immediately jumps out is that the photographer chose a spindly, weirdly contoured chick to stand in for the conventional hourglass-shaped slender babe that nearly all men love and desire. Had a normally proportioned thin girl like this one…

…been chosen instead, then the other four girls would look so much worse in comparison, and we can’t have that reality upsetting the narrative. Nonetheless, even with her body flaws, the thin, pretty blonde in the middle is the most bangable. Tatboy would barely inspire a half-mast chub, the Jabba twins are right out, and most men don’t want to caress rippling triceps and six pack abs on a woman. Especially a woman cresting the hill and in sight of the wall.

Women who can’t compete with the most desired women, or who fall tantalizingly short of competing, or who once competed by now no longer do, must get some kind of deep, ego-sparing emotional satisfaction by telling themselves blatant lies about the reality of female attractiveness and male attraction standards. If women didn’t have an IQ-lowering herd mentality and an obesity epidemic disfiguring the majority of them that prompted them to sing amens in unison every time a femborg shrieked out another reality-denying whopper, we’d hear far less of this crap blaring from all our media channels. Loser chicks would go back to licking their ego wounds the old-fashioned way — by taking up poetry and staring pensively out a bedroom window.

So, for the short bus regulars (this includes you, ♥Vanessa)…

Beauty is objectively measurable. Slender women are more attractive than fat women to the overwhelming majority of men. There was never a time when men liked fat women. A 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio is the most attractive body shape for a woman. A BMI of 20.85 is the most attractive weight for a woman. A young, healthy woman with clear skin is more attractive than an old, unhealthy woman with blotchy skin. Yes, ♥Vanessa, there is a sexual marketplace, women are just as much a commodity to be bartered in this marketplace as men are, there is no alternative to this reality, and there IS a wrong way to have a body.

Hope this hurts.

But at least some women get it.

Brianna Montana: the girl in the middle is not too skinny by far… Shes just in the middle of 2 fat bitches so it makes her look exxxtra tiny.

Read Full Post »

Direct Game Essentials

A reader wants to know if high octane direct game will get a guy laid consistently.

I stumbled onto this post during my normal stroll through the pick up artist forums.

He claims to basically be completely direct with his game. I’ve never heard of people being THAT direct. Telling a girl she’s sexy like that, seems a bit awkward and douchey.

I’m mailing you because I’m curious what do you think? Could being so direct get great results?

I won’t get into a long-winded discussion of the eternal question of direct vs. indirect game here. I’ll save that for future posts. But I will tell you that there are a handful of prerequisites — essentials — that you should abide if you want to see any sort of repeatable success with direct game.

1. Don’t be shitfaced.

Yes, the guy in the field report linked by the reader was intoxicated, and he managed a groping make-out and a number close. But most men, most of the time, are going to get blown out if they approach chicks sloppy drunk while sputtering how “sexxxxxyyy” they are. It’s simply too easy for a girl to brush off a man’s direct come-on if he’s reeking of liquor and slurring his words. Exception: if she’s equally drunk. (Not to say a little liquid courage won’t help. Just don’t drink past the point of self-awareness.)

2. Don’t target the obnoxious attention whores.

These kinds of girls are *expecting* direct solicitations, just so they can relish the shoot down. Counterintuitively, it’s often the more reserved, conservatively dressed girls who are showing a little more skin than they usually do who will crumble like feta cheese under the onslaught of a sexual direct approach. It is a myth that only skanks are DTF. Good girls will jump into the sack just as fast with the right guy spitting the right game.

3. Look for signs of ovulation in your targets.

You should pay more attention to body language than to what she’s saying. Ovulating girls are the ripest picks for one night stands, and you’ll notice by how flushed she is when talking to you, how many times she crosses her legs or shifts her weight from one foot to the other, and how often she licks her lips or tugs at her hair whether her egg has embarked on its journey. Science has shown that ovulating girls tend to show more cleavage and thigh, so keep an eye out for miniskirts and low cut tops.

4. Start direct, then switch to indirect, then back to direct.

Read the linked field report. You’ll notice the guy opens with “You’re sexy as fuck” (which, btw, is NOT an invitation to fuck a la the apocalypse opener), then downshifts to nonsexual rapport and teases her about her dancing skill, and then upshifts to a direct sexual solicitation when body contact between the two of them is at its maximum. This direct-indirect-direct system sustains the direct sexual approach by introducing the variables of male unpredictability and outcome independence, two things which all girls love in men.

5. It’s obvious, but bears repeating: overconfidence is king in direct game.

Any hint — I mean ANY CRUMB of a hint — that your sexually aggressive come-on is a farce, or was pursued with less than full sincerity, and she will blow you out. You have to be doubtless in your desirability, fearless in your attack, and dauntless in your commitment to victory. She smells the faintest whiff of self-doubt, hesitancy or smarmy backpedaling, and you will be pissily rejected.

6. Avoid romantic flattery.

“You’re sexy as fuck” sounds like a cocky compliment from a guy who just wants to jackhammer your pussy. “I have to say you’re really beautiful” sounds like a sycophantic plea from a beta who already dreams about long walks on the beach with you. Which guy do you think a girl is more likely to want to fuck one hour after meeting? You can pull off the latter with alpha body language, but you’re better served maximizing congruency between what you say and how much command you say it with.

7. Be prepared to lead, every second.

A guy who leads a girl everywhere and all the time prevents her from rethinking her desire to sleep with him. A body in motion tends to stay sexually available unless acted upon by a fat cockblock. Never ask. Tell her what you two are doing, and don’t wait for a decision-making caucus to develop. Bar, dance floor, another bar, another bar, alleyway, doorstep. No rest for the horny.

8. Don’t overgame.

Direct game pares down the seduction process to its bare bones. If you start flying off on tangents like “the cube” or storytelling, the raw sexual energy of the direct pickup will dissipate. A girl relinquishing herself to a sexually aggressive man expects it to feel like a power has taken hold over her conscious faculties and she has no defense to his wiles. This is an accelerated zone of seduction where the normal rules get truncated.

***

The relevant question to everyone reading here is, of course: Will I have more success on a more consistent basis with direct game, or with indirect game?

Unfortunately, I can’t answer this reasonable question with conviction one way or the other. My own personal style is indirect, though I have dabbled with direct game, to mixed results. Most of the seduction community practices indirect game, so if popularity is a measure of a game strategy’s effectiveness, then you’d have to give the nod to indirect game. (Direct gamers would counter that indirect is popular with most men because it takes more balls to pull off direct game. They have a point.)

There are other variables that need addressing before we can settle this matter one way or the other.

– Are very good-looking or muscular men better off running direct or indirect game? The answer to this is not obvious.

– What about significantly older men or uglier men or shorter men? Indirect game may limit the number of blowouts experienced by these men. Conversely, direct game may offer them a channel in which to rapidly demonstrate their overconfidence, thus bypassing the reflexive blowout. Again, the answer is not obvious.

– Are there contexts in which direct and indirect game have inherent advantages? My experience is that girls respond better to indirect during the day and direct at night in clubs, but I don’t have a wealth of direct day game data to test this hypothesis.

– Do some kinds of girls respond better to direct? Indirect? Unsurprisingly, a man I once knew who specializes in cougars (it’s not a difficult specialization) says that older women melt for his direct game. Ovulating coke whores with low digit ratios probably swoon for direct game, as well.

Finally, this dichotomy of direct versus indirect may have outlived its usefulness. Thinking on my pickups, it occurs to me that many of them were mash-ups of direct and indirect game. I use the best of both. Then there’s the definitional issue: direct game comes in many forms. “You’re sexy as fuck” is certainly direct, but it’s not an invitation to fuck. There’s plausible deniability of intention in that exclamation. “I want to take you home and fuck you”… now, that’s a direct come-on which leaves no room for hamster-fueling misinterpretation.

And this gets to the heart of the direct-indirect debate: namely, INTENTION. Direct game is the art of communicating your intention to fuck, sooner and stronger rather than later and weaker. Indirect game is the art of transparently concealing your intention to fuck in a cloak of plausible, yet tissue-thin, deniability. Either way, with direct or indirect, a girl whose social IQ is above room temperature and below genius-level autism is going to know you are talking to her because you eventually want to ravage her naked body. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to determine who among the pretty constellation of hot babes wants their seduction straight up smashmouth style, and who among them wants to experience the sublime thrill of fraught flirtation.

Read Full Post »

Cold Reading Is A Potent Seduction Tactic

Read the following conversation between a young woman and a doctor:

Young woman: Men are all alike.

Doctor: In what way?

Young woman: They’re always bugging us about something or other.

Doctor: Can you think of a specific example?

Young woman: Well, my boyfriend made me come here.

Doctor: Your boyfriend made you come here?

Young woman: He says I’m depressed much of the time.

Doctor: I am sorry to hear you are depressed.

Young woman: It’s true. I am unhappy.

Doctor: Do you think coming here will help you not to be unhappy?

Young woman: I need some help, that much seems certain.

Doctor: What would it mean to you if you got some help?

Young woman: Perhaps I could learn to get along with my mother.

Doctor: Tell me more about your family.

Young woman: My mother takes care of me.

Doctor: Who else in your family takes care of you?

Young woman: My father.

Doctor: Your father?

Young woman: You are like my father in some ways.

Doctor: What resemblance do you see?

Young woman: You are not very aggressive, but I think you don’t want me to notice that.

Doctor: What makes you think I am not very aggressive?

Young woman: You don’t argue with me.

Doctor: Why do you think I don’t argue with you?

Young woman: You are afraid of me.

Doctor: Does it please you to believe I am afraid of you?

Young woman: My father is afraid of everybody.

Doctor: What else comes to mind when you think of your father?

Young woman: Bullies.

Does that have anything to do with the fact that your boyfriend made you come here?

Do you see how the woman is being drawn deeper into the conversation, offering up more personal information about herself and becoming more invested in what the doctor is saying? Notice, too, how little the doctor actually says. His replies are open-ended questions and restatements of her thoughts and feelings, often in the form of a question.

The young woman in this conversation, in other words, is being gradually seduced by the doctor’s cold reading skill.

How does this doctor so effortlessly peer into another person’s soul and build an intimate connection? Who is this doctor with such profound seduction skills?

The “doctor” is a computer program.

Dr. Joseph Weizenbaum, of M.I.T., developed a computer program that would enable a human to apparently carry on a conversation with a computer. One version of his program is called “Doctor” The program is designed to “talk” like a Rogerian psychotherapist. Such a therapist is relatively easy to imitate because the basis of Rogers’ technique is simply to feed the patient’s statements back to him in a paraphrased form. The human, playing the role of the patient, types in questions and answers on a teletype machine. The computer, under control of the program, types replies and questions on the same teletype paper. […]

Doctor is a quite primitive program as natural-language programs go. It employs a lot of tricks and stock phrases. It has no mechanisms for actually understanding sentences.  Instead it seeks out keywords that are typed and does some simple syntactical transformations. For example, if the program sees a sentence of the form “Do you X!” it automatically prints out the response “What makes you think I X'” When Doctor cannot match the syntax of a given sentence it can cover up in two ways. It can say something noncommittal, such as “Please go on”  or  “What does that suggest to you?” Or it can recall an earlier match and refer back to it, as for example, “How does this relate to your depression?” where depression was an earlier topic of conversation.

In essence Doctor is a primitive cold reader. It uses stock phrases to cover up when it cannot deal with a given question or input. And it uses the patient’s own input to feed back information and create the illusion that it understands and even sympathizes with the patient. This illusion is so powerful that patients, even when told they are dealing with a relatively simple-minded program, become emotionally involved in the interaction. Many refuse to believe that they are dealing with a program and insist that a sympathetic human must be at the control at the other end of the teletype.

The above was quoted from an excellent paper on the seductive potency of cold reading, a subject about which the Chateau has written extensively as being a useful tool for bedding women, and which has been a staple manipulation technique described in PUA literature. (I really have to wonder how the anti-game haters can read stuff like this and continue to nurse their denialist delusions. Scratch that, I don’t wonder. The answer is simple: they have little experience seducing women or, for that matter, selling anything, including themselves, to anyone.)

The section in the paper subtitled “The Rules of the Game” is particularly good, and offers some ground rules for improving your cold reading skill.

Cold reading, like its sister skill non-evaluative listening (also demonstrated above), is a powerful rapport-building conversational combo. It is especially effective when used on women, who, being the naturally intuitive sex, tend to formulate phantom connections from nebulous, fact-free associations, like the kind that is the stock in trade of “reading” gimmicks such as palmistry and astrology.

You do not need these gimmicks to successfully cold read a woman, but in hothouse courtship environments like bars and parties they serve as expedient springboards. If girly gimmicks aren’t your thing, you can substitute with a cold reading “stock spiel”:

You can achieve a surprisingly high degree of success as a character reader even if you merely use a stock spiel which you give to every client [ed: aka sexy babe]. [S]everal laboratory studies have had excellent success with the following stock spiel (Snyder and Shenkel 1975):

“Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and resented. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do nor accept others’ opinions without satisfactory proof. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.

“Your sexual adjustment has presented some problems for you. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.”

Naturally, you shouldn’t think you have to quote this verbatim. Suit to taste. The key is to get the general gist of it and verbalize it in a way that is appropriate for the context which you share with the woman, and which is congruent with your vibe. Interestingly, the best cold reads are 75% positive and 25% negative.

We found that the best recipe for creating acceptable stock spiels was to include about 75 percent desirable items, but ones which were seen as specific, and about 25 percent undesirable items, but ones which were seen as general. The undesirable items had the apparent effect of making the spiel plausible.

This is very similar in function to vulnerability game, which works by making your projected alphaness seem more plausible to women.

So now that we know cold reading works to build an intimate connection with a woman by making her feel like you know her better than anyone else, the next question is “why does it work”? From the same paper:

But why does it work?  And why does it work so well?  It does not help to say that people are gullible or suggestible. Nor can we dismiss it by implying that some individuals are just not sufficiently discriminating or lack sufficient intelligence to see through it. Indeed one can argue that it requires a certain degree of intelligence on the part of a client for the reading to work well.

This is why my observation that smart, educated girls fall for game harder than dumb girls rings true among those who routinely pick up women. “Only bar skanks fall for game” haters wept.

Once the client is actively engaged in trying to make sense of the series of sometimes contradictory statements issuing from the reader, he becomes a creative problem-solver trying to find coherence and meaning in the total set of statements. The task is not unlike that of trying to make sense of a work of art, a poem, or, for that matter, a sentence. The work of art, the poem, or the sentence serve as a blueprint or plan from which we can construct a meaningful experience by bringing to bear our own past experiences and memories.

In other words the reading succeeds just because it calls upon the normal processes of comprehension that we ordinarily bring to bear in making sense out of any form of communication. The raw information in a communication is rarely, if ever, sufficient in itself for comprehension. A shared context and background is assumed. Much has to be filled in by inference. The good reader, like anyone who manipulates our perceptions, is merely exploiting the normal processes by which we make sense out of the disorderly array of inputs that constantly bombard us.

Like all game tactics, or any self-improvement pursuit, cold reading is a skill that requires practice. Your first efforts will likely meet with incredulous stares or annoyance, but as you get better you’ll begin to see the change in women’s reactions from doubtful and irritated to intrigued and… yep, you bet… horny.

Read Full Post »