This post is also available in: English
Or that it can work.
Anyways, how did I miss this? Scientists actually reviewed Mystery’s accelerated seduction blueprint, and what they discovered will surely wither further the already diminutive hearts of manboobs, freaks, monsters, feminists, losers, dweebs, omegas, white knights, traditionalists and slithery “academics” pretending to be feminists in order to score hipster chick poon: The concepts underlying game strategies are factually grounded, and game works!
The dating mind: Evolutionary psychology and the emerging science of human courtship
In the New York Times bestselling book The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2006), the world was granted its first exclusive introduction to the steadily growing dating coach and pick-up artist community. Many of its most prominent authorities claim to use insights and information gleaned both through first-hand experience as well as empirical research in evolutionary psychology. One of the industry’s most well-respected authorities, the illusionist Erik von Markovik, promotes a three-phase model of human courtship: Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction. The following review argues that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology. Two texts which represent much of this literature are critiqued and their implications discussed.
Jesus H. Christmas, this entire paper reads like it was ripped straight from Chateau Heartiste archives. And what was that muffled sound in the distance? Ah yes, the pffft of aneurysms popping in the heads of game denialists posting hater comments from under their beds.
This review deserves a detailed look, so let’s begin.
For the present analysis, we examined several popular works from the [dating coach and pick-up artist] Community. The Community consists broadly of heterosexual men who market various tactics, techniques, and methods to meet, date, and ultimately seduce women. Both published books and online forums offer opportunities to garner and share this information with a wide audience of people interested in improving their dating and romantic success.
Two main texts were chosen for this analysis. The first text, entitled The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed (Markovik, 2007), is widely regarded as one of the most important works in the Community. The second text, written by Markovik’s protégé and New York Times columnist Neil Strauss, also known on online forums as Style, is entitled Rules of the Game (Strauss, 2009). The two texts were selected mainly for the authors’ prominence and popularity in the Community.
I don’t have a problem with the two texts the review authors chose to analyze. [Disclosure: I never read Rules of the Game, so my opinion is based on what others have told me about it.] You can argue for this or that seduction manual or PUA forum compilation, but if you had to pick only two sources, these two would qualify as legitimate encapsulations of the major pick-up strategies.
The general starting point for much of the Community’s literature, whether explicitly stated or not, often begins with Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment.
According to Trivers’ (1972), the sex with higher parental investment (i.e., time and energy spent in gestation and rearing offspring) will be choosier with respect to mate selection. As a consequence, women very rarely accept propositions for casual sex with strangers (Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher, 2005), typically imposing a much more careful and rigorous screening process before consenting to sexual activity (Grammer, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001). On the other hand, human males as the biologically less investing sex, often have little to lose by mating with as many females as possible (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Indeed, Schmitt et al. (2001) have shown that men desire more lifetime sex partners, seek sexual intercourse sooner, and are frequently more motivated to seek casual sex than are women.
In the absence of a clear understanding of the biological bases of such differences, the courtship process and ensuing relationship dynamics can often appear confusing, frustrating and even debilitating. Such conflicts of interest in men and women’s sexual strategies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), often coined “the war of the sexes”, can be a significant cause of conflict and ultimately failure to find and maintain a lasting long-term relationship. However, as we will argue, this conflict is not inevitable. The knowledge of our evolved sexual strategies gives us significant capability to improve interactions between the sexes by choosing appropriate actions and deactivating others – ultimately reducing conflict between men and women. In this respect, we argue that when properly and ethically understood, the dating and seduction industry, despite its provocative label and origins outside of academia, is founded on solid empirical research as well as first-hand courtship and relationship experience. Ultimately, it is our suggestion that an informed appraisal of this information will ultimately help to lessen conflict and improve dating and relationships between men and women.
Knowledge of female sexual nature and game can improve relationships between men and women? Now a whoosh is heard. The game haters just spontaneously combusted.
Direct conversational openers typically begin with a very bold and straightforward proclamation, directly to one’s prospective romantic interest. For instance, a typical example of this type of opener might be: Hi, I saw you standing there, thought you looked attractive, and wanted to say hello. While apparently awkward or unimpressive to the inexperienced, many Community enthusiasts will swear by the ability of this approach to generate instant attraction in a prospective romantic interest. And indeed, there may in fact be psychological research to legitimate this claim. For instance, research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al. 1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women (as such an approach would clearly seem to demonstrate).
A direct opener will signal social dominance, self confidence, and high status by its mere use. The brazen opener is itself the alpha male signaler. My suggestion when using direct openers is to be sure your body language is sufficiently alpha to be congruent with the words you are saying to the girl. Otherwise, you will quickly get blown out, because incongruence during the opener is usually the death knell for any seduction attempt.
The second type of conversation starter, referred to as an indirect conversational opener, often begins with an off-handed opinion or question, at first merely designed to capture attention. For example, indirect openers often include apparently random queries such as, Excuse me- a friend and I were debating something. Could I have a female opinion on how a man should treat a lady on a first date? (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In stark contrast to a direct opener, the specific content of an indirect opener is often irrelevant; the more important objective is often to smoothly get a conversation started.
The big advantage of indirect openers is that you can generally hit on hotter women than you can with direct openers, because the latter tends to elevate the risk of getting insta-rejected if the girl happens to dislike your look, style, walk or wiry nose hairs, all of which are traits you display before you’ve even opened your mouth. Plus, hotter girls expect to get hit on more, so indirect is better for catching them off-guard, and for settling your nerves. (This rule of thumb breaks down when you get to the 9s and 10s of womanhood, who are so intimidatingly hot to most men that they paradoxically get hit on less frequently than their looks would suggest they do.)
[T]he conversational content at this point generally moves into interesting personality conveying material, such as humor, an exciting personal anecdote, a fun game, or even a simple piece of stage magic, intended to solicit attraction from a prospective romantic interest (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Markovik (2007) describes the advertisement of such qualities as “Demonstrations of Higher Value” (DHVs), which it is claimed, cause an increase in mate value and create attraction, thus providing the person access to more desirable mates. And indeed, psychological research has shown that many of these qualities, when well-presented, can often be quite attractive to the opposite sex.
For example, in a recent sample of UK personal advertisements, women rated charming social skills, wittiness, and a good sense of humor as among the most desirable traits in a prospective date (Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), which would seem to reinforce the claims made by the community (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009).
“Looks are everything.” – some loser justifying his inaction.
The Community further advocates a peculiar strategy known as “pre-selection” which is claimed to be often useful in crowded social gatherings (Markovik, 2007). Pre- selection is a strategy whereby a man in a public gathering will establish an innocent acquaintanceship with an attractive woman, gaining her trust, comfort, and friendship, only to later use her presence by his side to attract other surrounding women that are actually the intended object of his desire (Markovik, 2007). The phenomenon where females will copy or imitate the preferences of other females for a particular male mate has been documented in a wide variety of species, and is commonly referred to by evolutionary biologists as mate choice copying (Bennett, Lim and Gilbert, 2008; Dugatkin, 1992; Freed-Brown and White, 2009). Moreover, there is now increasing evidence to suggest that such strategies, whether intentionally practiced or consistently understood by those using them, are also found in humans (Eva and Wood, 2006; Hill and Buss, 2008; Place, Todd, Penke and Asendorpf, 2010).
A hot female friend who is willing to be your pivot is worth her weight in fluffy stuffed animals.
The second reputed phase of human courtship, building mutual Comfort and Trust, further seems to have a significant degree of support by various psychological research studies. Firstly, once Attraction has been established, community literature advocates the importance of taking the time to build rapport, comfort and trust before proceeding with seduction (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Indeed, psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review).
The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building, and the reason is likely because most men are naturally worse at the former. But in my experience, I see a lot of men dropping the ball during the comfort stage. I can’t count how many times I’ve witnessed some girl smiling broadly when she first meets a guy, and then watch as her smile fades to a grimace the more he talks. (I like to jump in at these opportune moments, because girls are… how shall I say?… more pliable to my charms when left in such a dispiriting state by some other inept man. You could call this strategy, Attraction by Comparison. It’s a productive strategy because most men are inept with women.)
Trust and comfort is often further established through the use of kinesthetic touch, or what the Community often refers to simply as “kino” (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). For instance, from a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.
If you showed me twenty men hitting on twenty women, and all I could see was how many times the men touched the women, knowing nothing else about their interactions I could predict with stunning accuracy which of those men would be getting the lay.
The final reputed phase of human courtship, Seduction, begins once mutual Attraction and Comfort and Trust have been established between two individuals. For instance, women typically require more time and intimacy to develop the same amount of passion as men (Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999). Consistent with psychological research, the Community often advocates what is known at the “seven-hour rule”; the idea being that a woman typically needs a minimum of seven cumulative hours of rapport- building in order to develop a strong emotional and intellectual connection (including shared interests, shared values, and a deep inter-subjective understanding) before consenting to sexual activity (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In order to accomplish this objective, the community encourages a process of mutual self-disclosure, whereby each gets to know the other person on a very deep and intimate level (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009), reinforcing psychological research on the development of relationships (Collins and Miller, 1994) and compassionate love (Hatfield and Rapson, 1993).
Alpha males are not stone walls. They understand that there will be a give and take in any seduction. They just know that it’s better to give a little less than they take.
In conclusion, it would seem clear that there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community. The three reputed phases of courtship, Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction, are supported by a significant and steadily growing literature based in physiological, social and evolutionary psychology research. […]
In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, one particular strategy known as “peacocking,” (in dubious reference to Zahavi’s (1975) handicap principle) involves wearing very ostentatious clothing specifically designed to exploit evolved cues for what women find attractive (Markovik, 2007). Although research has shown that women generally find social status attractive in men (Buss, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), thus far there is no direct evidence in support of this particular behavior. A similar strategy, known as “negging”, has been claimed to increase a male’s attractiveness by demonstrating he has high standards (Markovik, 2007). For example, a male might exclaim, Wow, those are great fingernails! Are they real? Oh, no? Well, they still look nice. Consistent with this argument, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) have shown that men who appear to have high standards are considered more attractive than males who do not; nevertheless, there is currently no direct evidence that “negging” is universally effective. An important area for future research would be to more closely analyze a broader spectrum of community literature and determine the scientific veracity of unsubstantiated claims.
Hopefully, academic feminists and sniveling manboobs will retreat to their cuntcaves under my assault of brutal mockery and real sociologists can in future conduct studies examining the effectiveness of other, specific game and seduction tactics, such as the aforementioned negs, and even pick-up and relationship techniques CH has introduced and described here, including “agree and amplify” and “instilling dread“.
Maybe, just maybe, they will even have the courage one day to study the peculiar allure assorted assholes, douchebags, psychopaths and jerks exert on attractive women.
[T]here may be important unrecognized ethical implications from using portions of this material. For instance, it has been argued that the initiation of touch or “kino” throughout the courtship process and alleged prioritization of physical over verbal consent may at times problematize interpretations of consent (Denes, 2011). To this end, we do contend that such material has the potential for abuse and urge caution with the use of the Community’s material, especially in the context of short-term relationships where sexual activity may be the sole objective. On the other hand, within the context of helping people to initiate long-term, stable relationships, we argue that informed male behaviors are not so unlike women attempting to manipulate perceived attractiveness through the use of perfume, cosmetics, clothing, liposuction and cosmetic surgery, and thus disrupt normal mate choice by men (Roberts, Miner and Shackelford, 2010). Therefore, if such practices allow men to approach, attract, and connect with women in similar fashion, we wholeheartedly endorse the ethical practice of such materials for establishing meaningful long-term relationships.
I believe it is this blog, this seducer’s stronghold, this digital palace guarding a horde of priceless knowledge that pierces the puzzle of pussy, which was at the forefront of elucidating for the skeptical masses how game could be useful for long-term relationships and marriage. Chateau Heartiste makes it impossible for knee-jerk haters and ignoramuses to caricature the science and art of streamlined seduction and learned charisma as the domain of frat boys spitting corny lines, or oily club hounds sidling up to skanks for a shot at the bathroom BJ.
Not that there’s anything wrong with bathroom BJs, but the caricature has been demolished, and now the haters must face the gut-punch reality that game works, and works well for men from all socioeconomic backgrounds and all romantic circumstance.
One day, perhaps sooner than the haters would dare contemplate in their most fevered nightmares, this formula:
will come to be seen as revolutionary to the human sciences as E=MC² was to the physical sciences.