Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

♂😎SCIENCE😎♂ swoons for Game once again, or rather, for the biomechanical truths explored here at the Chateau. Via reader RedEleven, a slew of studies examining the role of biological sex differences in gaits and other physical motions (there is such a thing as throwing like a girl).

There’s a lab in Canada that does motion capture studies of people and has collected data and produced animations that show distinct differences in the male and female gait.

This interactive flash applet lets you adjust the masculinity-femininity of a wireframe animation.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html

This WebGL version allows you to rotate the wireframe and toggle between dot mode and skeleton mode:

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/webgl_walker/webgl_walker.php

And here’s an excerpt from one of the studies they published:

“A framework is outlined that can be employed to obtain gender and other characteristics of the agent from human motion patterns and subsequently use this information to synthesize motion with particular, well-defined biological and psychological attributes.”

And from the discussion section:

“For instance the exaggerated male walker has wider shoulders than hips whereas in the female walker this ratio reverses. Male walkers display considerable lateral body sway whereas this is not the case for female walkers. Hip motion in male walkers is 180 phase shifted with respect to the hip motion in female walkers. The position of the elbows is very different in male and female walkers. Men tend to hold their elbows away from the body whereas women hold them close to the body. In general, the exaggerated man seems to attempt to occupy much more space than the exaggerated woman — a display not unique to the human species. ”

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Text/WDP2002_Troje.pdf

There’s also an experiment that let’s you guess the gender of these 15-point figures as they walk, run, throw a ball, sit down, etc – based on data capture from real life.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Experiments/BMLmdsex/

That first biomotion link provides a few minutes of amusement if you adjust the sliders to MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE.

Male-Female: All the way to the male.
Heavy-Light: All the way to heavy.
Nervous-Relaxed: All the way to relaxed.
Happy-Sad: All the way to happy.

There you go, gentlemen. Mimic the walking motion of the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE:

Elbows out.
Lateral sway in the upper body.
Knees high and out on the leg up-swing.
A little bit of bounce in your step. (“Get air” in your walk.)

In other words, lope like a pimp nigra.

j/k, but only sort of. Fact is, an alpha male gait that will turn on women is going to somewhat resemble a pimp roll. But Hwhyten it up. You don’t need to go the full gorilla to have an effect on lovely lady loins.

And whatever you do, don’t sashay your hips. Unless you’re John Scalzi, who is all about the swish.

BONUS: If you hoist iron, the resulting growth in your muscles and neural connections will naturally conform your gait into one that is more alpha male than beta male.

The second link is even funnier to watch in MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE, (if not as educational), because it’s a full skeleton instead of a dot skeleton. You can practically see the silverback hair and prominent brow ridge.

How did you do on the “guess the sex” biomotion test at the last link? Your venerable Chateau host got 8/10 on the first sequence and 17/20 on the second sequence. Not bad considering the only clue to the sexes was a dot figure performing different motions. Do I know this because real world sex differences in gait and physical motion shape my impressions? Or do I know this because I was born with a mental template deep in my hindbrain that subconsciously informs my instinctive impressions? It’s probably both: Our genes create our sex differences, and our culture organically reinforces our genetic imprints.

Conclusion: The sexes are intrinsically, innately, immutably… biomechanically different!

Feminists, male and female? You there?

*crickets*

What about MAXIMUM ALPHA FEMALE MODE (i.e, how would an HB10 walk)?

Set the dot skeleton sliders in the first link to:

100% Female.
80% Light.
80% Relaxed.
80% Sad.

Try it, and I think you’ll agree that this female gait is the sexiest to male eyes.

Why? Because sex differences in mating psychology are telegraphed through our gaits. The HB10 is at her sexiest when she’s walking with:

– a 100% female gait
– a light step, but not so light she looks like a flaky slut
– a generally relaxed gait, but with a hint of nervousness that suggests vulnerability
– some perceptible sadness, because a 100% happy woman looks too strident and chirpy to properly ping those male radars for vulnerable faire maidens.

I hope this post has been as informative to open-minded readers as it has been hurtful and distressing to equalist fruit cups.

Update

Commenter mendozatorres notes that the more “male” the dot figure, the greater the “crotch thrust” and the wider the man-spreading! Spread those legs out, men, and let your hog light shine! The women want a show. And, vice versa, when the figure goes from male to female, the crotch area sways more, like a pendulum tantalizingly swinging a basket of fruit at its end.

***

From commenter “its me”:

50/75/25/75 – effeminate homo/hipster walk lzozlzolzzolzzolzzozlz

It’s lzozlol because it’s true.

PS Fat-woman-who-has-given-up-on-life walk: 75/0/100/100. She looks like she’s ready to fall through the earth.

Read Full Post »

A long time ago , CH criticized “Sex at Dawn” writer, Christopher Ryan, for his beliefs that jealousy is a social construct (or a recent, malleable, adaptation) and his presumption that polyamory is the natural state of de-Christianized, de-programmed white Europeans.

But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them.

I don’t need a laboratory or multiple Pee Aich Dees to know that men feel more more white hot jealousy for a sexually cheating girlfriend or wife, and that women feel more jealousy for an emotionally cheating boyfriend or husband. One would have to have been born and raised in an SJW reeducation camp to believe otherwise.

These are the observed CH ugly truths that discredit feminism and its parent ideology, equalism, and drive their adherents crazy with rage.

Which is why, once the equalist liars are twisted into a rictus of butthurt, I like to ease the shiv in further, whispering to them in their death agonies, “Give up, you don’t stand a chance! Let’s end this here! It will be easier for you, much easier. You’ll see it will be over quickly.” And, since the anti-human leftoids pride themselves on their fellowship with ¡SCIENCE!, nothing quite delivers the killing blow like enlisting the aid of their godhead to betray them to their last breaths.

Apropos, here’s 💋SCIENCE💋 telling us that, yes, CH was right again: Men and women feel jealousy differently, and this difference is best explained by a biological, innate cause.

Highlights

• Strong sex differences in jealousy responses across measurement paradigms
• Sex differences in jealousy responses not subject to moderation or mediation
• Noteworthy sex differences in a nation with high paternal investment expectancy
Findings contradict explanations derived from social role theories.
• Findings support evolutionary predictions.

Despite some controversy about sex differences in jealousy, data largely support that sex differences studied with the forced choice (FC) paradigm are robust: Men, relative to women, report greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity than in response to emotional infidelity. Corresponding sex differences for continuous measures of jealousy typically have been less robust in the literature. A large sample of Norwegian students (N = 1074) randomly responded to either FC or continuous measure questionnaires covering four infidelity scenarios. Large, comparable, theoretically-predicted sex differences were evident for both FC and continuous measures. Relationship status, infidelity experiences, and question order manipulation (activation) did not consistently influence the sex differences for either measure, nor did individual differences in sociosexual orientation or relationship commitment. These large sex differences are especially noteworthy as they emerge from a highly egalitarian nation with high paternal investment expectancy, and because they contradict social role theories that predict a diminution of psychological sex differences as gender economic equality increases.

There will never be a polyamorous culture, legalized or de facto, in European-derived nations that doesn’t end in tears. Feminism, as per usual, is a crock of shit and a belief system that, contrary to its stated intent of enlarging the moral universe, strips humans of both sexes of their humanity.

Read Full Post »

Chateau Heartiste, 2009:

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

¡SCIENCE!, 2015:

Resisting Connection Following Social Exclusion: Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor

Social psychologists theorize that individuals seek connection following rejection. However, accepting connection from a low status other may imply that one is of similarly low status, which may call into question one’s prospects for future acceptance. Thus, we hypothesized that rejection would lead individuals to distance themselves from a low status other even when the low status other is accepting. In two studies, single, heterosexual, female participants received simultaneous acceptance/rejection feedback from one physically attractive man and one less attractive man. As predicted, rejected individuals derogated their rejecters as indicated by a decreased desire for affiliation and more negative evaluations. Moreover, participants rejected by the attractive man also derogated the unattractive man even when the unattractive man offered acceptance. These data may shed light on specific circumstances under which rejection leads to antisocial behavior.

It’s a bit circuitous, but the relevance of this study to CH Maxim #101 becomes clear once we accept the premise that “five minutes of alpha (male)” is to women, for all practical purposes, a rejection. “Five minutes of alpha” is an aesthetic interpretation of a one night stand or a short fling that ends without any commitment extracted by the woman from the man. A woman WILL feel the sting of commitment rejection in much the same way a man will feel the sting of sexual rejection; and yet, the fleeting pleasure of an alpha male’s attention can ruin a woman for all promise keeper beta males to come after.

This is what the study uncovers, in its sphere of examination. Women “rejected” by the alpha male were more likely to be a bitch to the lesser/beta male. That sting of rejection the women felt from the alpha, and the ensuing bitterness about it, redounded to the betas a hundredfold.

Conclusion: If you are a beta male… STOP DROP AND MOLD yourself into an alpha male. Also, the more alpha fux a woman has accumulated over her prime fertility years (without commitment from any of them), the worse she’ll behave toward any beta males unfortunate or stupid enough to take on the role of her sloppy sixtieths.

Again, we see the wisdom, first dropped at CH and later confirmed by 😎SCIENCE😎, that men who want admiration, devotion and loyalty from a lover would do well to avoid dating (or god forbid marrying) any woman who could challenge them in the bed post notch department. Virgins aren’t prized the world over for no reason.

But, please, feel free to pump and dump those “dick is abundant and low value” try-hard feminists and add to their future beta husbands’ misery.

Read Full Post »

A study (lovingly, via Cheap Chalupas) examining people’s changing impressions of wine quality when they believe the wine they’re drinking is expensive, provides, in a roundabout way, confirming evidence for the game concept of “fake it till you make it”, or what CH has more accurately restated, “fake it till you create it”.

From the SCIENCE ❤️ GAME files,

When consumers taste cheap wine and rate it highly because they believe it is expensive, is it because prejudice has blinded them to the actual taste, or has prejudice actually changed their brain function, causing them to experience the cheap wine in the same physical way as the expensive wine? Research in the Journal of Marketing Research has shown that preconceived beliefs may create a placebo effect so strong that the actual chemistry of the brain changes.

The science of biomechanical feedback loops is in its infancy, but it’s already uncovering some very eeeenteresting facets of human behavior. The brain-body connection, and how willful changes in the one can subconsciously alter manifestations of the other, has big implications for the study of seduction, aka game.

At this point I hardly need to spell it out for the regular readers. Preconceived beliefs, firmly adhered, can gradually alter the chemistry of the brain. In Game terms: Preconceived belief in one’s allure to women — aka sexy overconfidence — can create brain changes which turn the inner belief into outer reality.

It’s the same phenomenon we see with deliberate changes in body language, where assuming the posture and mien of a charming alpha male will increase your subjective feelings of well-being and even your testosterone level! This will, in turn, increase your attractiveness to better-looking women.

Granted, these effects are sometimes temporary and fleeting, but even a temporary boost in “alpha maleness” can mean the difference between a desiccated “you’re such a nice guy” brush-off and a fiery dance floor twirl leading to a night of debauchery.

And, temporary improvements in your sexy masculine vibe will, given enough of them accumulated over a long enough period of time, eventually become permanent fixtures of your being. Success with women builds upon itself, just as failure with women compounds the problems that drive women away. For this reason, it’s so important to get your son or friend up and running with Game while they’re open to self-improvement, before bad habits, self-pitying defeatism, negative female feedback, or tradconism consign them to a fate worse than death: settling for a fat wife.

Update

Via Randall Parker, a study found that mildly intoxicated people look more attractive to the opposite sex. Alcohol gives you a relaxed, confident, happy glow. Chicks dig it.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

More major Hivemind organs are beginning to accept, or at least grapple with, some core concepts of Game and how men and women interact in the flesh when they aren’t being prodded to chant equalist talking points. The New York Beta Times and even that den of shrikers, Jizzebel, have in their own way, and likely without knowing it, come round to the Proposition long espoused at Chateau Heartiste that romantic love is a glorious biomechanistic function which can be induced with certain premeditated seduction techniques, and that these techniques are especially effective on women who are the sex with an innate holistic appreciation of potential mate quality.

YaReally did such a bang-up job providing the backdrop to this post that I’ll just repost his comment here:

Jezebel admits that PUA works.

…without realizing it. lol The experiment they describe is just smoothly building comfort/rapport and the exercise ends with 4 min of deep eye-contact which is just running standard laser-eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Z4Nq0OrrM

“Catron calls this accelerated intimacy”

Ya, she’d BETTER call it that…because if she called it PUA or Game, Jezebel would shit a brick lol

It’s cute when normal society finally manages to spark a fire with rocks when they actively refuse to use the lighters PUA has offered for years lol

Posting this mainly to link the actual questions they use ’cause there’s a lot of good comfort/rapport building questions in here to swipe.

For reference, here are the 36 Questions that you should ask a woman, in order of increasing intimacy, with the goal of making her fall in love and desiring sex with you:

******

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share … “

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

******

Many of the above questions designed to create a rapid emotional bond with women will be familiar to long-time guests of CH. In fact, they are the EXACT SAME questions discussed in this six-year-old post.

YaReally continues,

Note that they go from silly/fun/light to deep/personal, just like building comfort/rapport should (really you build rapport and then transition into comfort). The first questions are more rapport based. Also there’s a lot of “us VS them” questions (assuming the two of you are together already and reinforcing that), and future projection (assuming the two of you will be together).

There’s also showing vulnerability but it comes AFTER the rapport stuff. The first Set of questions has no vulnerability but the third set has tons of vulnerability. A lot of this creates an emotional rollercoaster done in order too…like what’s your favorite memory (emotional high), what’s your worst memory (emotional low), and back up again after a few more questions.

Really this is rock solid in terms of the results it should give, though it would be weird to execute it in it’s full design in any way other than as a game/experiment. But you could take a handful of these questions and add them to your cheat sheet of comfort/rapport building questions and drop them into a conversation congruently and to the girl it would fell like, as Jezebel says, “and anyone who has met someone and moved fast knows what this feels like: It’s when you want to know someone so quickly and so thoroughly and so urgently that you wish you could do it via osmosis. You want to give of yourself and be given to, equally.” which in logical man-speak means “PUA fucking works, duh.”

“Which makes it worth noting: The experiment sounds like some kind of trick or shortcut to love, but if both parties are well intentioned and in agreement to try it, who is to say what sort of time it should really take to scale this terrain? We all move at our own speed.”

Will have to quote this the next time some feminist is crying that PUA is an evil trick that doesn’t work. lol

lol indeed. I’d also add a ‘heh’.

Also the description of laser eyes was interesting as it’s something I’ve been focusing on over the last year:

“After completing the questions, Catron and her date do the four minute unnervingly deep stare that ends the experiment, which at first involved a lot of nervous smiling, but then got a little more comfortable. She writes:

I know the eyes are the windows to the soul or whatever, but the real crux of the moment was not just that I was really seeing someone, but that I was seeing someone really seeing me. Once I embraced the terror of this realization and gave it time to subside, I arrived somewhere unexpected.

I felt brave, and in a state of wonder. Part of that wonder was at my own vulnerability and part was the weird kind of wonder you get from saying a word over and over until it loses its meaning and becomes what it actually is: an assemblage of sounds.”

Again it’s gay woman-fluff speak, but translated into something you can apply it describes why slowing down your speaking and leaving long lingering silences while you hold the laser eye-contact Liam describes in that video works…the first few seconds (I find it’s around 10-20 seconds) the girl is off in la-la land and then her brain realizes “oh wait, we’re really looking at each other here…” and her words trail off and your conversation switches more to subcommunications instead of surface level communication.

But casual glances or talking so fast you don’t leave tension in the air etc. won’t pass that point where it’s “nervous smiles” and entering that vulnerable “sense of wonder” stage that holding it and leaving silences creates.

Drive with Ryan Gosling is a good movie to check out for laser eye-contact…him and the chick do a lot of sub-communication shit just staring at each other. It’s exaggerated in that movie, but that’s along the right track.

Biggest key that Drive doesn’t do and this experiment doesn’t add is closing the distance during laser eyes. If you lock eyes and slowly close the distance so you get closer to the girl, it sends butterflies in her stomach into overdrive and you can turn that into attraction/sexual tension.

Gambler demos it here at 33:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unuqF4uklE&t=33m35s

She doesn’t fully crack until he takes that last step and closes the space.

This really deep rapport/comfort stuff is what Mystery Method was built around and it’s the reason that Mystery was getting girls to “fall in love” with him, not just want to fuck him. Old school MM game was more about creating multiple-LTRs where the girl felt like you had a special connection she’s never felt with anyone else before etc. than just getting enough attraction for a one-night stand. There were reports of girls breaking down crying when Mystery/Tyler/etc. wouldn’t take their number, which sounds like bullshit until you’ve run this really deep comfort/rapport game a bunch and seen how earth-shattering it is to girls to experience it (especially hot bar chicks who are used to more shallow interactions with people) and taken it away from them suddenly and seen how they flip out and chase lol

I agree with this observation. Men (aka inexperienced betas) underestimate just how few women, and how infrequently those women, get to experience the attention of a man who really knows how to properly seduce and challenge small-talk emotional blockades. A woman who is a gifted recipient of a man’s seductive expertise can fall in love harder and faster than she ever thought possible.

This is also why people I meet feel like they’ve known me for years when we’ve only just met, because I know how to smoothly build comfort/rapport with strangers.

If you’re finding girls don’t stick around for more than one or two lays, or if you want to get into mLTRs, [ed: multiple long-term relationships, for the iSteve readers] experiment with this stuff. But also be aware that if you want casual relationships, you don’t want to use too much of this or she’ll get too attached and drop the Ultimatum sooner than she would’ve if you hadn’t built so much comfort/rapport.

And seriously, go study Mystery Method. Skip the feather boas and black nails, but study everything else. It’s lengthy and dense but it’s the ultimate foundation of understanding this shit.

Mystery Method, first edition, is a compendium of truths about the sexual marketplace and women’s romantic natures that will never go out of style. As Ya said, don’t be put off by some of the outlandish self-promoting of the original playas (OPs). They hit the field and in so doing hit upon deep abiding realities about women and their call-and-response behavior to particular courtship tactics.

Read this post carefully and think about the implications of the message contained in it. ‘Yes, you can inspire a woman to feel love for you by following this flowchart of pretested questions and nonverbal communication, just as the game aficionados have asserted for years’ is not the kind of lesson that will warm the tender hearts of rom-com saturated women or trad-con saturated men. A thousand bromides about the mystery of love and “just being yourself” will need to be jettisoned, to make way for a better understanding of the human universe.

To ask so much of them is practically an exercise in cruelty. You can tell this by the enraged and uncomprehending reaction they have when their polite beliefs confront stone cold reality.

Read Full Post »

You know, all these warnings by women about players and their charming ways wouldn’t be necessary if women weren’t instinctively falling for their charms. Think about it. You won’t read too many articles warning women away from boring beta males. Women manage to Heisman those guys all on their own without directives from Cosmo.

Vox notifies,

Take a bow, Heartiste. Once more, science underlines Game:

The article is titled ‘How to Spot a Manipulator’, but it may as well be a truncated game guide for men.

One study tried to determine which personality traits pickup artists, men and women*, share.

The article begins by explaining,

In some ways, pickup artists use traditional tactics that fall into the category of persuasion. Whether it’s yourself or a product you’re trying to sell, you rely on methods of persuasion any time you attempt to influence someone else’s attitudes. You’re hoping that by influencing someone’s positive attitudes toward the item or person you’re promoting, you’ll change that person’s behavior.

Pickup artists have to influence people who have never met them to like them almost immediately. They rely on general strategies that others use to make a good impression, such as seeming attractive, charming, or successful. Unlike a person truly interested in getting involved in a romantic relationship, though, the pickup artist needs merely to look like someone who’s looking for love.  These qualities—being manipulative, self-centered, and insincere—are exactly those that show up in the personality constellation known as the “dark triad” of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.

The HEXACO model of personality structure informs us that Dark Triad people are low on the Honesty-Humility factor. Lemme tell you a leetle something about honesty and humility as pertains to What Women Want™: Honesty is relationship lube, not attraction lube. All else equal, no woman makes the decision to fuck a man because he’s honest. And humility is actually counterproductive to sparking a romance; chicks dig those overconfident men.

Interestingly, they went into the research assuming that, despite the stereotype, women as well as men could fit the criteria—and in fact, the study included plenty of female pickup artists based on the self-reports the team collected.

*Female “pickup artists” are really just cockteases with borderline personality disorder, as you will see this study pretty much confirms. Unlike male pickup artists who are interested in increasing the quantity, quality, or both, of their conquests, female pickup artists are mostly just interested in manipulating a lover or two for incessant ego validation and, when the men she twirls around her fingers are inexperienced betas, for material gain.

In the pilot study that began the project, Jonason and Buss asked 102 participants—all undergraduate students and two-thirds of them female—to describe their experiences with people who had “pursued short-term sexual encounters.” The 71 acts the participants described ranged from abuse (verbal or physical) to avoidance (not returning emails or phone calls). Between these extremes, those who sought to keep their interactions as uninvolved as possible engaged in behaviors such as avoiding non-sexual intimacy (such as hugging), keeping conversations superficial, failing to introduce partners to family and friends, and seeming promiscuous or blatantly announcing that they were only seeking short-term sex.

Lessee… avoiding cuddling and pillow talk… playfully teasing… remaining somewhat mysterious… refusing to relinquish too quickly to expectations of commitment.

Sounds like abundance mentality coupled with Aloof&Indifferent Game. This combo is irresistible to so many women, it’s a wonder more men didn’t evolve the ability to express it naturally. (It’s such a wonder, in fact, that I am tempted to believe there was a time, a long epoch, in our human past, when strong environmental pressures dissuaded women from cleaving to charming players or dissuaded players from openly displaying their talents.)

Male and female pickup artists were equally likely to use the tactics that would keep the relationship from evolving into a one of longer-term intimacy, as well as to seek ways to keep the relationship sexual. However, there were some gender differences: Men were more likely to use violence directed toward their partners, while women were more likely to let a partner know that they were only in the relationship for the sex.

Both sexes use what they know works.

In the all-important personality domain, pickup artists showed specific traits, including antisocial tendencies. As predicted, they were also more likely to be narcissistic. Again, though, male and female pickup artists differed in some aspects of their personality profiles: Women who acted openly promiscuous, for example, were higher in psychopathy. Men high in Machiavellianism were more likely to adopt the tactic of not integrating partners into their lives.

This is interesting. Promiscuous women are, as this study found, CRAZIER than promiscuous men. And our real world observations confirm this. It makes sense. Men are built — some rapscallions would say evolved — for promiscuity, or, at the least, for a tendency to be promiscuous when opportunities arise. Men are thus better equipped, mentally and emotionally, for no-strings-attached sex than are women.

Persuasive charming men — the kind of men women LOVE LOVE LOVE — will manage their promiscuous lifestyles by CARING ENOUGH for their lovers that they don’t lead them too deeply into highly charged emotional and commitment expectations. Heh.

Overall emotional stability also played an important role, but one that differed for men and women: Women who were most likely to engage in keeping the relationship from becoming intimate were also the least emotionally stable. And for women, but not men, self-rated promiscuity was also related to conscientiousness scores.

Again, sex-focused, relationship-averse women are emotionally unstable and self-destructively impulsive in a way that sex-focused, relationship-averse men aren’t. The sexes are different on a fundamental level. Perchance, to deal with it.

So how should women spot a charming loverboy? A short list to start them off:

Telltale behavioral signs

  1. Engaging in unkind acts such as verbal or physical abuse intended to drive you away.
  2. Avoiding physical intimacy other than sexual.
  3. Being unwilling to introduce you to the important people in their lives.
  4. Openly flirting with others in front of you.
  5. Being unavailable and nonresponsive to attempts to maintain or establish contact.

The joke, of course, is that women can spot these signs and it won’t do a lick of good. It’s like asking men to spot the signs of beautiful women so that they can avoid them for low maintenance frumps.

Telltale psychological signs

  1. (for men) Seeming to care only about what you can do for them, not how they can help you. [ed: chicks dig a sexually entitled man.]
  2. (for women) Being late, sloppy, careless, and unconcerned about meeting other people’s expectations.
  3. (for women) Seeming unstable, worried, anxious, and insecure.
  4. (for both) Being highly preoccupied with their own appearance, showing undue self-centeredness, and expressing feelings of entitlement.
  5. (for both) Showing lack of regard for other people’s feelings, not just yours, and expressing lack of remorse for actions in which they caused harm or pain to others.

The few BPD chicks I’ve dated were, without exception, perpetually late and lived in clutter boxes. I knew early on that women who had no interest in keeping up their homes (however humble square-footage-wise) and who preened constantly while simultaneously fretting about their looks (without justification) were basketcases who fucked like champion mares and who would be gone from my life, of their accord or mine, within six months. It’s funny how these female archetypes are universally recognizable. Special little snowflakes, my ass.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: