Using Women For Ego Boosts

It’s a common complaint heard from the insufferably self-absorbed and eternally single SWPL chick:

“Why didn’t he call?”

Ladies, I’m here to tell you why that guy didn’t call. You’re not gonna like it. Most likely, he was just using you for an ego boost.

Yeah, some guys don’t call back because they’re afraid they’ll be rejected on a first “formal” date. Or the momentum was lost, and he thinks in your sobriety you’ll be less open to meeting again. We call these guys lesser betas.

Fact is, most men don’t think that way. If a guy gets your number, and he’s interested (i.e., he finds you hot enough to fuck and possibly date) and single, he’s going to call you.

I’ve seen attack bitches burning off the shoulder of Club Orion, and thanks to these experiences I can say pretty confidently that men will often not call back because all they wanted was the instant ego boost of a woman’s sexual interest, usually manifest as a phone number close or a make-out. (For the players, a one night stand that precludes any extra dating investment is their idea of a quick ego fix, not to mention pleasure fix.)

If a man doesn’t call you back, it’s because

a) he’s already dating someone and just wanted to see if he still has the pickup magic, or

b) he’s already dating someone but you aren’t hot enough to risk getting caught cheating, or

c) you were a confidence-building stepping stone to test out his game for use on hotter chicks.

That’s pretty much it.

Exceptions to the above rules exist. Some men won’t call back because they didn’t know how to end the conversation with you when you first met, and felt obligated to ask for your number. This is what true niceguys do when they aren’t interested in you. Jerks will never labor under an obligation to number close girls they don’t feel inspired to fuck. The jerk will simply walk away when he’s tired of your witty banter.

Other men are so crippled with anxiety and self-doubt that they frequently defer to thinking the number close ended on a weak note, and won’t risk calling back when a video game with instant status assuaging leveling is a mere chair roll across the floor.

But mostly, when a man doesn’t call you back it’s because you didn’t meet the threshold of further pursuit, but you did meet the threshold for boosting his ego. So the next time you’re staring at your silent phone, remember to think to yourself “Yes, it’s me, not him. I’m not hot enough for him.” If it helps the awful-tasting medicine go down, try to imagine this cruel woman-baiting by egotistical men as the analogue of you ladies outrageously flirting with beta males you have no intention of fucking for the ego thrill of their courtly supplication.

Read Full Post »

Punishing Single Momhood

Commenter Libertardian sends along this link to a story about a Wisconsin Senator who introduced a bill that amounts to a massive social shaming campaign against single moms.

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”

I approve of this bill. If socially shaming women to the point that even one of them avoids becoming a single mom by choice and burdening society will her illegitimate hellion spawn, then it has done far more good for the nation as well as the individual woman than all the trillions spent on leftist wishful thinking, non-judgmentalist programs over the past 50 years.

The facts are out there, for anyone willing to listen. Children do best with a mother and a father. The growing ranks of single moms are creating a degenerate horde of emotionally and mentally destitute orclings, and we — all of us — will pay the price, sooner rather than later. Count on it.

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy’s policies make so much sense it’s like a cleansing blast of mountain cooled breezes through marshy, addled skulls. Godspeed, Grothman. Do not go defensively into that morning light. Stay the course.

Naturally, the lefties who run the joint are three faulty synapses from a mass epileptic seizure. Case in point: the female “””impartial Yahoo! journalist””” can’t finish writing the story without snarling about Grothman’s own childlessness as some sort of proof positive cunt whistle for the dumbass brigade.

Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents

Oh, the snark! It’s so delicious, isn’t it? Grothman has no kids! He’s unmarried! Secret decoder ring says: what the hell does he know about single moms?! After your bout of ironic SWPL chortling where you get your feelgood fix remotely lording it over the rubes in flyover country, you may want to examine the raft of logical fallacies in your thinking. Here’s a starting point: you don’t have to be burned alive by non-hateful merry pranksters to know that it’ll hurt.

Libertardian comments:

This strikes me as aiming at the effect (single motherhood) rather than the cause (i.e. society’s unshackling of female hypergamy).

You take your policy improvements where you can get them. The root cause is unshackled female hypergamy, but a policy aimed at shaming one of the symptoms — in this case, single momhood — will do some good as well. Call it the broken persons theory of social policymaking. You fix immediate problems at the margins by shaming individual bad behavior and in time the bigger, mass scaled dominoes begin to fall. At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.

Of course, some exceptions to the social shaming program will have to be made. For instance, widows with children are not single moms, and shouldn’t be lumped in under that label. The shaming should target those women who choose to have kids outside of marriage and those unmarried women who shack up with unreliable jerks and act all surprised when the jerk heads for the hills after a kid is born. In other words, shame the women who make bad choices, not the women who are stuck in unexpected bad situations through no fault of their own.

Note that a social shaming program against single moms would work regardless of the precise correlations between single momhood and dysfunctional bastards. In what I generously refer to as the Jason Malloy theory of genetically inherited Bad Lifestyle Choosing (he is the occasional web commenter who drops gems of insight in cutting edge blog comments sections) — a theory which holds that the dysfunction of single moms’ kids is due to the kids inheriting the awful genetic predispositions of their trashy parents — the effect of shaming would work at the genetic level as well as the social level. Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.

Either way you cut it — whether the dysfunction is predominantly genetic, environmental, or both — the act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization. And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.

Read Full Post »

A Valentine’s Day Thought Experiment

What’s more degrading:

a. paying a whore because you have no other way to get laid

b. sleeping with this for free:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

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 »

Cats And Dogs As Ego Emblems

Are our choice in pets a reflection of our sexual natures as they are or how we wish then to be? A reader:

Wanted to ask you – do you think it is typical for beta males to favor cats as pets and alpha males to favor dogs as pets?

I’m asking this because all nerdy looking, weak, lame and otherwise guys with beta characteristics usually prefer cats.

Internet is very popular of lulzcats and related shit for a reason – it’s because the nerds sit on the internet.

Somehow when you see real men, they are with a loyal and aggressive dog.

Your thoughts?

The greatest male players I’ve ever known had cats. Sleek, mysterious cats, not fluffy designer furrballs. The player who owns a cat — an animal which embodies many human female traits — is telling women that he is comfortable surrounded by feminine energy. He knows how to handle it. He prefers the challenge of women.

Generally, though, the power arc of man-pet complementarity follows your observation. Urban SWPL manginas and socially maladjusted nerdos are more open to owning cats, while conventional country boys and popular jocks tend to shun cat ownership, except for outdoor cats who spend most of their time out of sight, preying on rodents. And then there are noticeable trends in the types of dogs that men will own; gays, artists and upper class dandies preferring precious but useless runty pedigrees and the rest of men preferring big, healthy dogs with legs to run. It’s only at the rightmost tail of player seducers that you see the preference for dogs revert back to cats, owing partly to the fact that a man who spends so much time enjoying the pleasures of women has little left for walking dogs and scooping poop.

But the real contrast in pet ownership is intersex, not intrasex. Most men prefer the company of dogs, and most women prefer cats. While unmarried tomboys with dogs do exist, 9 out of 10 times the chick you date will own a cat, when she has a pet. SWPL chicks are almost universally cat people, though in recent years there has been a slight move toward more dog ownership among this set. There is a reason why the sexes have these preferences.

Pets are symbols of how we see ourselves, and how we would like to be seen. They are extensions of our egos. Dogs are loyal and potentially aggressive. Non-nerdy men who don’t lament their own phalluses love big dogs primarily because of those two reasons. The dog is a symbolic idolization of a man’s yearning for a woman’s uncompromising loyalty, as well as a projection of simmering, virile power. In the dog, the man sublimates the highest virtues of manhood, and his deepest need from womanhood.

Cats are a symbolic idolization of woman’s solipsism, and self-absorption. The mirror is the woman’s world, conceit her currency in trade, coyness and prerogative her highest values. In the cat, the woman sees reflected her own nature, that of the coy and inscrutable object of desire. The cat is thus a narcissistic celebration of her own womanliness.

The cat is smaller and less affectionate than the dog, and this smallness and aloofness feeds a woman’s need to nurture and pry for displays of love, much like a dog’s loyalty and obedience and ready affection feed a man’s need to be admired, to dominate and to enjoy unlimited and unconditional love.

For men, the only thing you need to know is this: while ownership of a big, loyal dog is a leading indicator of alpha maleness, the cat is the animal whose behavior you should mimic to seduce women. Acting like an affectionate, needy dog is beta. Acting like a mysterious, aloof cat is alpha. The primary purpose of owning a dog is training yourself for ownership of a woman.

Read Full Post »

The Evisceration Of Penelope Trunk

You say evisceration, I say loving ministration.

Ah, Penelope Trunk. For some reason, she gives fellow aspie and open borders ivory tower bubbleboys chubbies, who can’t stop linking to her blog, (comments by “Dave” and “Anotherphil” are illuminating). But Chateau Heartiste called this broad out for the psycho, man-hating bitch she really is a long time ago. And how that judgment has been vindicated. Prescient? Nope. Just open-eyed observers of the human condition, coupled with a smattering of experience with these types of whipsaw women.

The latest Penelope Cunk dramafest comes courtesy of a post on her blog where she displays her wrinkled slate-flat cougar ass and her wretched uncaged id on national internet, complete with bruise she alleges was from her husband, who got sick and tired of her “look at me!” provocations and pushed her into a bedpost out of frustration.

The Farmer told me that he will not beat me up any more if I do not make him stay up late talking to me.

If you asked him why he is still being violent to me, he would tell you that I’m impossible to live with. That I never stop talking. That I never leave him alone. How he can’t get any peace and quiet in his own house. That’s what he’d tell you.

Translation: Penelope Trunk berates, nags, pesters, humiliates, shrieks and wails at her husband at ungodly hours of the night and throughout the day, and he responds, in piques of frustration abetted by his normal male propensity to avoid extended verbal fights with no ending or solution in sight, by physically stifling her to make the unbearable shrew torrent stop.

What feminists either don’t understand or don’t wish to understand is that a nontrivial amount of physical domestic abuse is in response to non-physical provocation. For every action there is a reaction. Women abuse men psychologically because that is where their strength lies, and fortunately for them the marks made by psychological abuse are less photogenic than the marks made by bedposts. So women, in addition to being the beneficiaries of the ancient biological force that subconsciously deems the female of the sex a more valuable commodity than the male, get to enjoy the sympathy of the bovine crowd when they post jpegs of their thigh bruises.

These volatile domestic scenarios are almost never one way streets. Look at Rihanna. Chris Brown is a violent thug, but Rihanna could have easily avoided his flying fists of fury had she just stayed the fuck away from him. And yet, she couldn’t do that. She *still* can’t do that, in fact, and in returning to him to shower him with her love rewards his shitty behavior. Penelope Trunk does something similar with her Farmer hubby, but takes it a step further; she instigates his flashes of anger and desperation purposefully to get a rise out of him, so that she can avoid feeling abandoned. Or whatever the fuck it is she missed out on from daddy.

When guys talk about crazy bitches to stay the fuck away from, Penelope Trunk is Exhibit A.

Now don’t get me wrong. These kinds of women have some use: they are great in bed. Gung-ho master class fucktoys who’ll take it up the poop chute and lick you clean if it means you’ll gaze deeply into her eyes just a little longer. But that’s where it ends. Save your love and commitment for the relatively sane chicks. You give your heart to a drama queen and attention whore like Penelope Trunk and you are asking for a world of emotional torment if you don’t know anything about the proper handling and care of such spaztastic specimens. Because when the screaming and crying and berating don’t work, she’ll step it up to openly flirting with other men in front of you, and then to cheating and leaving clues for you to find out about it, and finally to resorting to insane outbursts to get her hamster fix.

And you will never experience such roided up, coked up, caffeinated hamsters in your life. These critters are unstoppable.

My edumacated guess is that Penelope Trunk’s husband is a beta male at heart who has no clue about women, and even less clue about women like Trunk. He was smitten by her willingness to screw early and often, and her slender proportions, while well past prime attractiveness, compared favorably to the lumbering middle-aged cows on his horizon and put the boner in his pants for the first time in years. Being a man of little breadth of experience with women and zero game or state control, he was easy prey for Trunk’s urbane sadomasochism. She takes advantage of his rustic beta ignorance and naivete and pushes him to the brink as often as she can get away with it, while enjoying the thrill of refueling her ostentatious craving for coerced, theatrical displays of love and a relationship perpetually teetering on the precipice of doom. He, being a salt of the earth kinda guy, has no idea what he got himself into, and his instinct to control an out of control situation impels him to lean on the one defensive maneuver that worked in the past and which rises naturally from the contours of his male brain: his showstopper physical will to power. Of course, the solution is always temporary, and the cycle repeats. Which is exactly how she wants it. And she gets it.

I love a good pile-on as much as the next sadist, so here’s an ego shredding, soul killing, demonic diagnosis worthy of a Chateau Hall of Fame nomination, from a naughty little bastard called The Last Psychiatrist.

Penelope Trunk has a history of sexual abuse by her father.  She has a pattern of intense, unstable relationships; a history of self-cutting, bulimia; is emotionally labile and reactive; and her primary defense mechanism is pretty obviously splitting, i.e. things are all good or they are all bad.

Trunk says she has Asperger’s, and maybe she does, but what I’ve described is “borderline personality disorder.”  BPD is not a description of behavior exactly, it is a description of an adaptive coping strategy.  In other words, people persist with BPD because it works. […]

Knock down fights and great make up sex is psychologically more fulfilling than a normal, calm, low-affect marriage.  Mind numbing jealousy is preferable to being 100% sure of their fidelity, to the point that it will actually be invented.  “Are you just looking for things to be upset about?”  The answer is yes. […]

Nothing is to be gained by saying her husband abuses her, which he does, but nothing is to be gained from saying that unless he’s listening.   She is abusing herself.  I’m not judging her, I’m not saying she is bad or that I don’t understand it, but she’s setting up, well, a pattern of intense, unstable relationships because she needs the intensity and will thus tolerate the unstability.  A relationship isn’t one sided, or bi-directional, it’s a dialectic.  They are very much in it together.

A worthy flaying. Borderline personality disorder is the scientific term for attention whoring, although not all attention whores are BPD victims. Every woman has the seed of an attention whore in her, as it is the caprice of their sex, but some women, women like Trunk, through a combination of genetic enhanced femaleness and environmental instability during the formative years, become raging monsters of insatiable egos with no self-awareness or cultivated sense of modesty.

And here’s the catch. What the Last Psychiatrist describes as a deranged personality imperfection is just the normal female psychology amped up to unsustainable levels of estrogenic insanity. Women really do like a little — or a lot, for some women — uncertainty in their relationships. This is a scientifically as well as observationally settled fact. It is the natural female inclination to swoon and tingle for men who offer doses of delightful discomfort. This inclination, it should be noted, is stronger in younger, prettier girls for whom the option to act out in this way without consequence is readily available.

The Last Psychiatrist has to know that this predilection for drama, affect and uncertainty is primarily a female affliction, and, in small manageable doses, is actually the normal state of emotional functioning for the majority of women. Hamster spinning wackos with advanced cases of BPD like Trunk are extreme manifestations of this innate female condition, much like power hungry sociopaths are the extreme manifestation of the innate male predisposition to maximize status. TLP is right to highlight Trunk’s disease of the id, but he should not be tempted to think that Trunk is a wholly alien representative of the female sex.

Trunk is, to put it mildly, a hyperfemale.

But, alas, the wall looms for hyperfemales as surely as it does for emotionally grounded women. The attention whoring that provoked so much reaction from men when she was younger elicits nothing but indifference at best and contemptuous pity at worst from men when she is older and uglier. TLP:

The thing is, BPD “works” when you are young, there are always people around to tolerate it.  Parents, boyfriend/girlfriend, employers, etc– and being pretty, which Trunk obviously is, helps a lot.  This doesn’t mean people are necessarily nice to her, or that she’s happy; only that  “crazy” behavior is more tolerable to other people when you are young.

The problem for her is she’s not getting any younger, and like it or not the only one who will put up with a 60 year old borderline is no one.  Except maybe the kids, which we will get back to.

Once women start experiencing the consequences of their flighty behavior from getting older and invisible to men, the smart ones among them adjust their expectations, emotional indulgences and demands accordingly. Penelope Trunk, thanks to the sycophantic chorus of her careerist fembot and scrap-begging mangina readers, will likely continue her coyote ugly act on into perpetuity, winding up alone and unloved by anyone but her imagination and bug-eyed omega commenter nerds desperate for human contact. If she hasn’t burned too many bridges and was effective at concealing her complicity in her personal calamities, then she may retain the love of her kids into dotage. That’s a big if. More likely, the kids will slowly realize what a loon she is, and will withdraw their love until they feel safe from entanglement in her manufactured crises.

There is an easy, convenient way to deal with BPD attention whores that won’t get you socially ostracized or locked up. If I had the ear of Trunk’s husband, I’d tell him this. Instilling a dab of dread — a phone call, say, from a location where she can hear the voices of laughing women in the background — would go a long way to satisfying the drama-feeding maw of Trunk’s vagina-shaped id. No blog-fodder bruises required. At the very least, such knowledge can give him more options in women, freeing him from his desperate, fearful clinging to a visually stimulating BPD headcase.

I’ve said it before. Game can save lives. This is not hyperbole. This is goddamned truth.

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 »