The tsunami of scientific evidence vindicating core premises of game and the teachings found in Chateau Heartiste archival documents keeps on rolling. The latest study adds to the accumulating weight of evidence that game works, and that women prefer men who are less emotionally available, i.e., insensitive jerks.
[W]omen are less attracted to men who seem too caring on a first date, according to research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
In the study, women were less likely to want to sleep with male acquaintances who expressed concern when they opened up than with men who were less emotionally responsive.
It’s another case of nice guys finishing last. “The ‘too-nice stranger’ may come across as desperate,” says lead study author Gurit Birnbaum, Ph.D., a lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel.
Male desperation kills tingles dead.
(Female desperation is largely irrelevant in the context of female attractiveness. Men will want to fuck a hot woman no matter how desperate she seems, and in fact any attractive woman signaling desperation for sex will only stoke the male desire to achieve immediate sexual gratification with her. Ugly desperate women can improve their chances for sex by roping in a man who’s in the middle of a dry spell with the promise of effortless, if unsatisfying, access.)
This study’s results are so self-explanatory that not much more needs to be said. It is total confirmation of one of the most powerful precepts of game: That women love mysterious men who play hard to get, who present themselves as challenges, who don’t give away the store, who don’t “woo”, “chase” or appease, and who don’t assume the role of the emotional tampon.
In other words, be a bit of a jerk. Or a lot of a jerk, as the situation or the type of girl may call for.
Male overconfidence is the heart of game, but plausible deniability is the hot red blood pumped through the veins of a pick-up. Girls like their male sexual intention on a need-to-know basis: Expertly concealed and fully revealed only when the tip has breached and all hope of maintaining an illusion of coyness is lost.
The art of flirting is the progression of an intensifying series of sweet little lies intended to provide plausible deniability cover for a woman as she steers her burning libido through labyrinthine and often misdirecting pathways put into service to maximize her hypergamous rewards and minimize the threat to her reputation and the risk of post-coital abandonment or unworthy insemination. Women love the evasive parries of flirting because flirting is the limbic fuel that feeds their hungry hungry hamsters, and a man who is skilled in the manipulation of women’s desires — a man who keeps it close to the vest and who knows better than to bare his soul like an emoting whore manboob and thus rob women of the joy of slow, anticipatory discovery — is the aloof and charming asshole that women find irresistible.
In related science/game news, a study finds that students think they learn more from an overconfident instructor than from an awkward instructor, even though there is no real difference in amount learned.
The present study explored the effects of lecture fluency on students’ metacognitive awareness and regulation. Participants watched one of two short videos of an instructor explaining a scientific concept. In the fluent video, the instructor stood upright, maintained eye contact, and spoke fluidly without notes. In the disfluent video, the instructor slumped, looked away, and spoke haltingly with notes. After watching the video, participants in Experiment 1 were asked to predict how much of the content they would later be able to recall, and participants in Experiment 2 were given a text-based script of the video to study. Perceived learning was significantly higher for the fluent instructor than for the disfluent instructor (Experiment 1), although study time was not significantly affected by lecture fluency (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the fluent instructor was rated significantly higher than the disfluent instructor on traditional instructor evaluation questions, such as preparedness and effectiveness. However, in both experiments, lecture fluency did not significantly affect the amount of information learned. Thus, students’ perceptions of their own learning and an instructor’s effectiveness appear to be based on lecture fluency and not on actual learning.
Manipulated perceptions FTW. Overconfidence FTW. Gaming your mark FTW. How to win pussy and influence people FTW.
Appearance of competence or seductive prowess matters, and it matters in the biggest way: it increases reproductive fitness.
PS For the haters:
SCIENCE ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ GAME!
aww, does the hater hurt? where’s the boo boo? here? let me fix that… twiiiiiiiiiiiiist