Bachelor Pad Themes

The look and layout of your bachelor pad when you take a woman home with you, while not a necessary tool of game, can help ease the transition from seduction to sex. There are four main design theme directions a man such as yourself can consider when kitting out a home to best reflect your ladykiller cred.

1. More masculine

Deliberately excising any estrogenic touch from your interior decorating is the way of the man who wants female visitors to know his balls are not for sale. These are the homes of the finance wizard, the international businessman and the nerd. Man caves are usually sharply geometric, monochrome, metallic, hi-fi and, except in the case of the nerd, blessedly free of clutter. Bedroom furniture is either heavy, dark, unadorned mahogany or Scandinavian. Art is minimalist and modern. Sofas are exquisitely uncomfortable, facing enormous flat screen TVs. Top shelf bottles of liquor rest on Sterling Cooper bar caddies. The masculine home is a cold, unforgiving, chillingly beautiful non-interactive space that evokes the warehouse aesthetic of early first person shooters. You are reminded of nothing less than “American Psycho” and chainsaws.

2. More feminine

Adding splashes of femininity to your bachelor pad lets women know you are comfortable living with the energy of the softer sex humming pleasantly in the background. The feminized bachelor pad is the man parlor of the artist, the real estate salesman and the homosexual. Man parlors feature rounded edges, multihued color schemes, mineral or elemental textures, lo-fi vintage sensibility, and whimsically decorative trinkets and baubles of meaninglessness. Bedroom furniture is either antique or avant-garde. Square pillows and cologne-scented candles are everywhere. Paintings of French scenes abound. The feminized man parlor is a warm, aesthetically welcoming interactive space that evokes safety, security and the familiarity of romantic moments in front of the fireplace.

3. More sexual

This is the player’s studio. His den of iniquity. A sexualized bachelor pad, whether masculinized or feminized, is littered with props that testify to a man’s preselection by women and his tomcat lifestyle. Many decorative touches are of the form of “accidental” knick-knacks left lying around — such as old photos of you with pretty girls, a stray earring, two toothbrushes in the bathroom — that send hamsters spinning at full tilt. The sexual overload is contrasted with carefully conspicuous cookbooks and “homey” artifacts that fuel the female predilection to believe there is a domesticated man within the cad just waiting to burst forth with assistance by the right woman. This is the man lounge that inspires one night stands.

4. More mysterious

Here we come to the final destination — and the most difficult to master — in bachelor pad proofing: the man manor. A woman entering the enigma of the man manor is greeted by curios of mysterious beauty and a design sensibility that evokes not so much an aesthetic, but an adventure; a life fully lived. Oddities loom over monstrous bookcases. Souvenirs act as fulcrums for each room’s decorative theme. Tattered manuscripts, not glossy magazines or SWPL weeklies, perch tantalizingly in nooks and crannies. The rooms do not reveal, as much as beg for more to be revealed. A woman, upon entering this alternate manverse, is forced to navigate the novelty, snooping reflecting on what she sees at every turn, robbed of the inertia to sit down immediately and stew in her ASD (anti-slut defenses). She is overwhelmed by curioisty, and a curious woman is shortly a horny woman. Man manors pay only the slightest lip service to design rules, but they are generally spartan in space usage (the better to showcase the quizzical artifacts of unusual heft), boldly colored with an emphasis on the darker hues, moody in affect, and nonconformist. The man designing the man manor assiduously avoids trendiness of any flavor. He does not care for social approval; he only cares about lighting up the neural synapses of his prey.

***

There is no right or wrong way to manage the look of your bachelor pad. Each of the above four themes, properly executed, will redound to a man’s advantage in the bedding of women, and some women will react more favorably to a certain theme depending on her individual aesthetic, station in life and relationship goals. However, one theme provides a bigger boudoir boost than the others. And that is the man manor. Simply put, mystery is the gift that accelerates women to sexual abandon faster, and more reliably, than masculinity, femininity or Quagmire caddishness.

I have not lived in every style of place outlined in this post, but I have known, and know, men who do live in homes representing each of the four major design philosophies. Without doubt, the best players tend to the man manor theme, sprinkled with props indicating female preselection. The biggest player I have ever known — a man whose count possibly numbers in the thousands — had a living space that could double as a museum.

Charred oak was the construction medium of his coffee table and bookcases, which were filled with travel guides, dog-eared classics of literature and lewd photography books. A cracked and gouged writing desk he claimed was one used by Edgar Allan Poe sat in his bedroom, at the end of a four poster king-sized monstrosity covered with mosquito netting. A full body female mannequin wearing a safari outfit and pearls occupied a corner of the living room. She looked on the proceedings with an expression of smug disdain. A stuffed rattlesnake reared back, coiled and angry, under a glass case.

A shelf full of dusty old baseballs supposedly gleaned from major sporting events and autographed by famous players peered out from small glass containers. (I say supposedly because I had suspicion that some of the autographs were added after the point of sale.) A crocodile head was etched with dripped wax from a giant gothic candle on its snout. A reading stand — much like the one you might see holding a Bible in a church — propped open a leather-bound notebook with scribblings in Arabic, a small bottle of india ink at its side. He claimed it was a compendium of love poems written to him by a former lover who died young. A very realistic and very creepy Hollywood quality face mask acted as a bookend. A surfboard with a shark bite-shaped chunk missing from it leaned against another corner. A black cat (real one!) with piercing green eyes sat at the edge of a banal out-of-place microfiber couch, surveying his playground.

The overall impression is that one had entered the abode of Ernest Hemingway merged with Andy Warhol.

But the coup de grace was the white wedding dress (sans train) and dark purple tuxedo displayed on mesh wire torsos in a hallway leading to the bathroom. “A love story gone tragically wrong,” he would explain. In fact, he had a story for everything in his place, and it was a rare girl who didn’t feel impelled to satisfy her curiosity. I’m convinced his digs were such extreme chick crack, that half his game was opening the front door and letting girls have a look see.

How much of his stuff was authentic, or how many of his stories true, I can’t say. Likely, most of it was BS. But what does it matter whether he traveled the world collecting strange mementos and memories or he traveled to a SWPL store two miles away to buy his stories at exorbitant prices? Girls ate it up just the same. He put effort into learning and retelling his stories, true or not, and that made girls happy, which made them want to have sex and fall in love, which made him happy. And isn’t that the essence of game?

Once you’ve entranced a woman with your living room, proceed to the bedroom finishing move; the final mysterious conceit that will cause her hamster to run straight to her vagina and start nibbling on her labia.

Read Full Post »

The Allure Of The Coy Man

It’s easier to judge men’s sexual interest than it is to judge women’s sexual interest.

Everyone Can Predict The Interest Level Of Men On A Date – But Not Of The Women With Them

When it comes to assessing the romantic playing field — who might be interested in whom — men and women were shown to be equally good at gauging men’s interest during an Indiana University study involving speed dating — and equally bad at judging women’s interest. […]

“The hardest-to-read women were being misperceived at a much higher rate than the hardest-to-read men. Those women were being flirtatious, but it turned out they weren’t interested at all,” said lead author Skyler Place, a doctoral student in IU’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences working with cognitive science Professor Peter Todd. “Nobody could really read what these deceptive females were doing, including other women.”  […]

“How people talk might convey more than what they say,” Place said.

Observers did not have to see much of this non-verbal behavior. They were just as good at predicting the speed-dating couple’s interest if they saw only 10 seconds of the date as they were if they saw 30 seconds. The researchers say this showed that observers, even with limited information, could make quick, accurate inferences using “thin slices” of behavior. […]

Evolutionary theory, said Place, predicts a certain level of coyness or even deceptiveness in women because if a relationship is abandoned they may face greater costs, including pregnancy and child rearing. When choosing a mate, it is in a woman’s best interest to get men to open up and talk honestly to give her a better idea of whether they would be good long-term partners.

“In a speed dating environment, you would expect to see these effects dramatically, with the women trying to get the men to be more straightforward, while they themselves remain more coy,” Place said.

Female coyness is an evolutionary adaptation that serves two important purposes; one, it pressures male suitors to be more forthcoming with personal information that could reveal their mate value (and male mate value is more complex than female mate value, which for the latter amounts to mostly how the woman looks), and two, it alters perception of a woman’s sexual fidelity. Coy women tend to be perceived by men as less slutty and therefore better long-term mate prospects who won’t cuckold them.

So that sly smile and subtle shit test tossed out over drinks in a cozy lounge are nothing more than a woman’s mental executions of ancient biological algorithms operating at the subconscious level. Romantic poetry and sweeping odes are man’s attempt to elevate this sordid and banal clanking of the machinery of genetic legacy beyond the realm of disappointment. Can you blame us for smearing lipstick on this pig?

So coyness is the natural state of woman. And informational overload the natural state of man. Men sell, women buy. Men market, women browse. This is the current that carries courtship over hormonally-tossed helical seas.

And yet game, in theory and in practice, teaches men to act opposite their natural instinct; to assume the role and the prerogative and the mindset of the woman in seductive affairs. In essence, to flip the script.

Flipping the script works. It works because women can’t resist a man who won’t tidily play by the established, and oh so boring, rules. A coy man — a man who is as circumspect and judgmental and inscrutable as women normally are at the beginning of a courtship — triggers women’s attraction, much like a woman’s firm round ass and pretty face triggers attraction in men. Male coyness — aka the art of insinuating you are the one being chased — is so odd, and so at adds with biological, not to mention social, norms, that women are compelled to chase the man who effectively adopts such a conceit. A woman thinks to herself, or rather she subthinks to herself (because these thoughts never really materialize fully into conscious awareness):

“This man is coy for a reason. What is he hiding? And how amazing is this part of him he’s hiding? He hasn’t asked a question of me yet. Does he like me or not? I can’t tell. He must have other lovers at his beck and call. I feel strangely intrigued. I need to know more.”

Once a woman is put in this chaser pattern, the seduction is yours to lose. She will be the one readily offering information about herself to win your approval, while you will lean back, literally and figuratively, judging her harshly. For it is true that every woman, despite her boilerplate blather to the contrary, secretly wants to be judged by a man. That’s how she knows you’re better than the rest.

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 »

What Makes A Good Wingman?

A good wingman will lie for you. (Via Randall Parker)

U of A researcher says good wingmen will fib for a friend

A University of Alberta researcher says that […] people are generally willing to help a friend protect or enhance his reputation or help him otherwise save face in a social situation.

Along with colleagues from the University of Calgary and UBC, Jennifer Argo, an Alberta School of Business professor, explored the circumstances under which people would be willing to tell a lie to manage another person’s social image. The study found that the wingman is primed to step in with strategic identity support.

“Strategic identity support” = third party DHV.

“This is an instance when you don’t have the opportunity to make yourself look good, so somebody else does it for you,” says Argo. “But you’re better off to hang out with your friends (in these situations) because your friends will look out for you.”

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this describes male friends more than it does female friends.

A friend in need? The fib’s the deed

Argo studied the likelihood of people helping out a friend who – to his chagrin – paid more for a car than did another person for the same vehicle. Regardless of the size of the price discrepancy, she says, friends are willing to come to the rescue. She notes that in the case of a large discrepancy, even strangers may be willing to help a person save face as a random act of kindness.

“People put themselves in the shoes of the other person and say ‘I would want someone to lie on my behalf so I wouldn’t look bad,'” she says.

Argo notes that the key here is for the person needing help to be physically present during the conversation between the friend and the third party. Otherwise, she notes, the only time they might be willing to fib on behalf of the absent friend is in the case of a large price discrepancy.

Analogously, your in-field wingman is more likely to go to bat for you if you are in his vicinity. So don’t leave for another floor of the bar or drift into a conversation across the room when he’s working your set. On the other hand, wingman lies work best if you seem out of earshot. Given that, the best positioning is going to be with your back to your wingman and your target, and striking up a convo with a nearby group. This will add credibility to whatever accolades your wingman is telling your target.

“It comes down to what kind of relationship you have with the person in need. I think it is truly defined by the level of your friendship,” Argo says. “If it’s the best friend, I think most people would lie, even at the risk of possibly being found out.”

This is why I would never put much faith in “wingman services”; i.e., those internet forums that try to pair you up with fellow pickup travelers. If you want the best out of your wingman, he needs to be a good friend.

Good intentions & the wingman’s lament

She says the wingman theory could apply to almost any situation in which there is a discrepancy that could negatively impact the social perception or impression of the friend, such as when a friend has bought a knock-off surreptitiously.

Or when he’s being cockblocked by a territorial elephant seal.

She says the application works equally when applied to business settings, in which a friend may embellish a recommendation to help a pal get a job. It may also apply at a party, where embroidering the truth could get a pal a first date with a potential partner.

“Yeah, he probably doesn’t want anyone to know this, but my buddy spent some time in the clink. That’s what he gets for helping a girl who was being mugged.”

“Based on the findings, it would seem reasonable to expect that people who understand their friends should be willing to step in as a wingman in a number of different contexts if their friends are in need,” Argo says.

I feel the need
the need for plead.

However, Argo muses on the potential implications of telling a little white lie for a friend, something her study did not explore. She says even though the favourably-positioned falsehood has no cost to the receiver, it may potentially place the friendly fibber’s integrity in question with the person for whom the fib was originally told, especially if the lie was unsolicited. She says this would be an intriguing follow-up to this study.

“It does say something about that person, too. Because (as my friend), if you’re lying, and I know it, it might make me question or cause me to doubt how much you lie to me and others,” she says.

This is why you’ve gotta work out beforehand what kind of lies, if any, you want your wingman to tell chicks. The last thing you want is him thinking that a story about you pooping your pants after getting tased by the cops is a DHV. Some guys need their hands held like this.

It has to be common knowledge among seasoned seducers (I would hope) that a friend or other third party touting your alpha virtues to a chick will sway her opinion, and influence her attraction, much more effectively than self-promotion. Humans are predisposed to believe the ad copy of third parties more than the braggadocio or insinuations of primary parties. Friends and wingmen might be biased, but nothing is as biased as our own egos.

Here is a short list of excellent fibs that a wingman should consider for use in prepping your target.

“He tells me he needs help finding that special someone, but the guy has been with more women than I can count. He doesn’t need any help.”

“My buddy? Oh yeah, we call him Heartbreaker Hank.”

“His ex was the CRAZIEST stalker I ever knew. She showed up one night with a poem and a box of chocolates, right when we were in the middle of a band rehearsal.”

“Watch out for this guy. He’s trouble.” (a classic drive-by wingman line)

“You’re not a stripper are you? He’s had enough of dating strippers.”

“Yeah, he’s my buddy and all, but I gotta be honest… he makes the worst decisions in women. Actresses and dancers wear pretty thin after a while. Too many neuroses.”

“He’s probably too nice for a girl like you. He’s actually afraid he’ll hurt a girl in bed. I keep telling him that girls think it’s the good kind of hurt. What a heart.”

“I hope you like naked skydiving. He’s managed to convince every girl he’s dated to jump out of a plane naked.”

“I met him in the holding cell. Stand up guy.” (can double as a DHV for gays)

“Fuck, after all this time I dunno what he does. Import-export, he says. He won’t let anyone look inside his car trunk.”

“He thinks being a former NHL pro is some kind of accomplishment. Please.”

“How did we meet? He needed a really good lawyer. I came through.”

“Careful. Don’t let him charm you. You’ve been warned.”

“He’s half black. Bet ya never would’ve guessed.”

“He’s gonna kill me for saying this, but… you know when politicians need the numbers of high class escorts? He’s their hookup.”

***

Besides the ability to fib effortlessly and believably, wingmen should also possess the following characteristics:

1. Acting skills. You want your wingman to act like he’s your acquaintance, rather than your close friend. His lies will be better received if the girl thinks they are coming from someone with little motive to pump your stock.

2. Be not much taller than you. Tallness is dominating, and can distract girls from his calculated boosterism. You don’t want a wingman who will always steal the spotlight.

3. Be not much uglier or socially awkward than you. Conversely, it will reflect just as badly on you if your friends come across like losers. The best wingmen are plausible wingmen who don’t blow up conversations with nerdgasms.

4. Have extensive knowledge of your social strengths and weaknesses. A good wingman instinctively knows when you are comfortable joining a conversation, and when you need bailing from a faltering set. He will also have a knack for steering a conversation in more fruitful directions when he notices you struggling, like when you have stunk the joint up with a lame joke.

5. Be unafraid to constructively criticize. The good thing about being a man is that your male friends won’t hesitate to give you shit for something stupid you’re doing. Course correction is thus much faster for men than it is for women.

5. Most importantly, your wingman will have tight game. The best — I mean the very best — wingmen are former betas who put in the effort to learn game and who already have girlfriends or a rotation of lovers. Naturals have a tendency to either selfishly dominate sets or sabotage friends by letting their alpha instincts run wild. Single wingmen sometimes nurse unfulfilled horniness that will impel them to steal your target if they find their schtick is working on her. Wingmen with fully drained balls, tight game, and a strong sense of loyalty and selflessness are the Holy Nail of wingman pickup assistance.

Read Full Post »

Overconfidence Is The Heart Of Game

Read this study abstract closely. It’s important in a SCIENCE ♥s GAME kind of way.

Confidence is an essential ingredient of success in a wide range of domains ranging from job performance and mental health to sports, business and combat. Some authors have suggested that not just confidence but overconfidence—believing you are better than you are in reality—is advantageous because it serves to increase ambition, morale, resolve, persistence or the credibility of bluffing, generating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which exaggerated confidence actually increases the probability of success. However, overconfidence also leads to faulty assessments, unrealistic expectations and hazardous decisions, so it remains a puzzle how such a false belief could evolve or remain stable in a population of competing strategies that include accurate, unbiased beliefs. Here we present an evolutionary model showing that, counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of competition. In contrast, unbiased strategies are only stable under limited conditions. The fact that overconfident populations are evolutionarily stable in a wide range of environments may help to explain why overconfidence remains prevalent today, even if it contributes to hubris, market bubbles, financial collapses, policy failures, disasters and costly wars.

And, might I add, pump and dumps!

What does the above study conclusion remind you of? Anything coming to mind? Oh, yes…

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

Poon Commandment Eleven. The good hosts at Chateau Heartiste were ahead of the curve yet again. Is there no game concept science won’t eventually come around to confirming? Excuse me while I give myself over to deep, utter, profound self-love. Mhhmm… *smack* *kiss*… mmhhhmmmhmmm… oh yeah big guy….

Confidence… no, OVERconfidence, the belief that you are better than you actually are… is the heart and soul of game. This is where the rubber meets the hoes. Without a glowing inner satisfaction born of overconfidence, all the game tactics in the world will fall flat. Riddled with self-doubt and trepidation is no way to execute a flawless neg or disqualification. Perhaps this explains why so many unconfident betas struggle during the learning curve phase of game, and turn their backs on it entirely when instant success isn’t forthcoming — their game is betrayed by their second class mentality.

Overconfidence is the fulcrum upon which rests every other facet of game. Overconfidence is the origin source of outcome independence. Overconfidence is Skittles Man. Overconfidence is the skeleton key that opens women’s… hearts.

Overconfidence IS alpha. If I had to describe in one word the attitude which most starkly delineates betas from alphas, it would be overconfidence. The alpha, no matter his actual status as measured by the Committee to Uphold Social Norms and Acceptable Hierarchies, confronts the world with faith in his superiority and social elevation. The beta second guesses himself at every turn. And women can SMELL this difference in attitude. They are drawn to it despite themselves, thanks to eons of evolutionary pressures molding their hindbrains.

Now you may argue, in my opinion rightly, that unjustified self-regard by large numbers of people is bad for civilization. That the reflexive doubt, the unbiased proclivity to self-assessment and the humbleness of the beta are the bulk ingredients which give structure to prosperous societies. But this is not the issue before us. The issue we discuss is women, loving women, and inspiring love from women. And by that standard, unjustified male self-regard, so long as the rewards are worth the cost (and in modern society, where women shower the alphas with their pussies during their prime teens and 20s, the rewards are substantial), is the winning mating strategy. You can easily confirm this for yourself by stepping out of the house and observing women in action with your eyes wide open. And now you can read about the reality you see with your eyes in the pages of esteemed scientific journals.

(Interestingly, the study shows that in societies in which the rewards accruing to overconfident people are not greater than the costs, the unbiased, self-doubting beta strategy prevails reproductively — where reproductive fitness thwarted at the goal line is a proxy for attractiveness in a world awash in widely available contraceptives. You could therefore hypothesize that structuring society so that women are not free to ride the cock carousel during their primes would propagate social levers that encourage humility in its men. Conversely, overconfident arrogance among men becomes like a plague in societies where shaming mechanisms to rein in female sexual predilection are dismantled. Again, it all comes back to the female sex drive being the wilder of the two sexes, and thus the more necessary to corral to the benefit of society’s well-being.)

(Naturally, as more overconfident men are sexually selected by women, the daughters of these couplings wind up with the overconfidence genes, which may account for the ridiculous sight of fat chicks and cougars in America with 463-bullet point checklists.)

So what does this mean for you, the reader? There’s good news. Confidence can be learned. It can be internalized, regardless of externally objective measures. And where there’s confidence, overconfidence lurks not far behind. But that is an unnecessary distinction; learned confidence IS THE SAME THING AS overconfidence. By definition, if you are deliberately and pointedly taking on the attitude and mannerisms of a confident man, you are often doing so without external justification, and your confidence could fairly be described as overconfidence. The exception would be if you are an objectively high status beta who lacks the self-awareness or the demeanor to translate his socially-approved status into confident swagger.

In the end, it doesn’t matter, for it is primarily the overconfident attitude that women find attractive, not the baubles which festoon or the credentials which socially legitimize the attitude.

The archives of the Chateau are filled with techniques for raising your confidence levels. Peruse freely. It’s all there, from body language adjustments to dress to posture to voice tone to expressions to adopting an attractive alpha male thinking mode. Even saying positive, ego-stroking thoughts out loud can subconsciously strengthen your confident resolve. Ya know, some might call these tactics… game.

On the subject of nomenclature, overconfidence goes by another name… inner game.

Ultimately, it’s success with women that will bring you to the pinnacle of overconfidence, flush with pussy-parting attitude. The confidence born of repeated beddings of cute chicks is the kind that goes to the bone, and suffuses every sinew. That’s why you’ll notice that the men with the most naturally unshakeable confidence around women are the ones who have been getting their way with women since they can remember, and their jobs or social circles or finances have little to no bearing on the concreteness of their confidence. Their overconfidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, building upon itself with each successive seduction.

This insight doesn’t help the noobs, but only if we measure success by the noobs’ standards. “Get me sex now” is the wrong standard, and unfortunately is the standard most heavily marketed to by shysters. Instead, as a newcomer to the game of seduction, you should be rejoicing in every positive interaction you have with women, no matter how trivial. Every hi fuels your confidence until you are prying smiles from girls. Every smile emboldens you until they are touching you. Every touch emboldens you until they are giving you their numbers. Every number emboldens you until they are kissing you. Every kiss emboldens you until you are banging them. Every bang emboldens you until you feel free to love them.

Finally, you are so emboldened that you no longer come to women for reinforcement. They come to you.

***

Here’s a related study (via Randall Parker):

The study revealed two key discoveries to why powerful people cheat. First, there is a strong association between power and confidence and that the amount of confidence a person has is the strongest link between power and unfaithfulness. Second, the researchers found that among powerful people gender made no difference in past digressions or the participants’ desires to cheat.

This is a tantalizing clue that, contra Henry Kissinger’s famous aphorism, it is not the power per se that women are sexually drawn to, but the confident demeanor that powerful men exhibit. As explained in the “Defining the Alpha Male” post, the best judge of a man’s alphaness is the quality, number and attraction intensity of the women who would sleep with him were he so inclined to take up the offers. Tautological, maybe. But tautologies are often the inevitable distillations of great truths. There are some objectively powerful men, who for one reason or another, do not exude the unstoppable confidence that is the usual offshoot of their stations. A strict definition of alphaness relying on power alone is therefore incomplete. It must be accompanied by a confident attitude. And where real power is missing, overconfidence can step in to fill the (vaginal) void.

Randall notes:

The researcher is (or at least pretends to be) a foolish blank slater who thinks gender differences are going to disappear. But he (she?) still makes the useful observation that power begets confidence which  begets the bedding of others. Okay, so if one can find other ways to feel confident more beddings will take place…

I’m not surprised that the small pool of powerful women studied by the researchers cheat almost as much as the powerful men. Women who have the gumption and killer instinct to reach the top of corporate hierarchies are masculinized by nature, so they are more like men than their own sex, in both libido and aggressive personality. Check out female VPs sometimes. Narrow hips, tallness, thin lips and wee (unaugmented) tits as far as the eye can see.

I therefore wouldn’t assume much about the cheating likelihood of women in general from a study into the unfaithfulness of very powerful women. For instance, I would suspect that the men in the study cheated with younger, hotter babes, while the women cheated with similarly situated beta schlubs as their husbands. Keep in mind, it is much harder for a man to cheat than a woman, since any sufficiently desperate loser will dump a fuck in a rapidly spoiling woman who makes herself easily available.

To those women who ask, “Well then, does this mean ugly and old women can attract high value men by acting overconfident?”

No. Overconfident fugs are still fugs. Overconfident cougars are still cougars. There is no equality of the sexes in this respect.

Read Full Post »