Some years back Neuro Linguistic Programming became a fad when people realized they could apply that form of persuasion to seduction.
Last year Dilbert creator Scott Adams popularized the power of hypnotic 3-d persuasion, and related it to Trumps bid for the presidency.
Here is a talk by an FBI negotiator who reveals many powerful techniques of persuasion:
I was a travelling salesman, and would set up my mini-store full of wares on college campuses and at music festivals throughout the U.S. mid-west. I hung out with other sales-men, and lived the life of a sales man. My target audience was mostly college aged girls.
Sometimes I travelled with a crew of helpers, sometimes I travelled with my Indonesian girlfriend. When I was with her, I’d leave her to do the sales all day while I went back to the hotel to meditate. She was a great little sales girl.
How did she learn?
How do we learn persuasion?
What did I learn from hanging out with salespeople, and how did I learn it? What did I learn from simply putting myself behind a sales table?
In pre-historic times, the art of tool making was passed down from generation to generation, and in thousands of years the shape of the tools didn’t change. Apparently archaic human brains were less creative than modern human brains, but I still believe that we have some vestigial similarities in how we fundamentally learn. We mimic.
We are evolved with mirror neurons. We pay close attention, and we absorb, and we mimic.
As modern humans, we are not constrained to mimic exactly. We filter, and adjust to our circumstances.
First you find a mentor or hero, then you copy his style, then slowly you develop your own style.
But you can’t develop your own style without practice, and that means repeated exposure to your learning environment. As a comic, your ethos is to get up on stage and just do it as often as you can. It’s not only about if you crush it or bomb. It’s also about just getting up on that stage.
Because we need that feedback. Our body and mind will figure out the micro-adjustments. MOST of our adjustments will be sub-conscious. We learn timing. We learn inflection. We learn the value of silent space. We learn how respond with tangential near-non-sequiturs instead of logical facts. We learn how language influences. How body language influences. How eye contact influences.
Learning is not done in a vacuum. It’s not done through books. We need to firstly mimic. Then we need to practice.
I don’t believe that there are enough resources currently for mimicking.
I think it’s become more apparent lately that understanding the sexual market place is not about something that you can learn in a book. It’s about something that you can be.
What you are completely changes how you are perceived and dealt with.
The above sentence is the KEY to understanding the sexual market place.
You can’t just talk about how women are, as if you are not in the equation. Women are very different, depending on each individual man, and on the context. How women will behave towards certain words is a null question. The real question is how a woman will behave towards YOU.
And you are a sexually class-mobile person. You can change from zero to hero, if you’d like to, and are willing to put in the time and effort.
And if you can follow the simple steps, of how we learn.
I really believe that we can’t learn about either the sexual marketplace or about how to improve our dating lives from un-masculine men.
It’s not about book learning. It’s about starting with an appropriate mentor to mimic.
The best teachers will understand what they do, and be able to put that into words. But even the best teachers will not know MOST of why what they do works. They’ll only be consciously aware of a very small part of it.
Even if you study from a wide array of teachers, and put their best insights into practice frequently, you will still miss out on the bulk of those teacher’s value. Most of communication is non-verbal and too difficult to try to squeeze into words. We need to see it and absorb it.
******
As well as being imprinted by mentors, we are also imprinted by the women that we date. That doesn’t mean you’ll become feminine, don’t worry. It’s more subtle than that. Once you learn to embody the masculine polarity as genuine and with fun ease, you can appreciate and incorporate quite a lot of fun quirks that the girls you are into have. Might be just a way that they say a certain word. Might be an appreciation for a certain type of adventure. Even fucked up people usually have a few fun aspects worth internalizing.
******
There is no rule book of how the sexual marketplace works, and of how women behave. Because: what you are completely changes how you are perceived and dealt with. This is why we can’t learn from un-masculine men. They only understand how women treat un-masculine men.
******
One man’s impression about how most mentors in the red-pill PUA and manosphere scenes are not appropriate role models:
******
Relevant: If you are using Rollo’s mental map of the marketplace and see him as a mentor you need to know this https://www.scribd.com/document/412763803/Statement-on-Removal-of-RT-From-21
Random Xpat Rantings 
>> How women will behave towards certain words is a null question. The real question is how a woman will behave towards YOU.
My wing Sundance is kicking ass right now, but he is tough to talk theory with some times.
I noticed:
He never gives himself credit for anything… It is always the theory that “worked.”
And he doesn’t allow much for differences in the girl’s psych/background… The theory “does all the work.”
Watching him take BOTH himself and the girl out of formula each time – so that only the theory is left, completely divorced from context of the main acters – taught me something about how we talk about game in this community.
Context. Context. Context.
Good post. Always good to bring it back to the basics. Succinctly.
On Rollo…. The flap with the 21 convention guys and the note on his alleged misbehavior takes nothing away from his published work. If anything it sort of confirms it; Aging-married-guy-with-hair-or-lack-thereof-that-compels-him-to-always-wear-an-unstylish-hat gets invited to a cool guy soiree – with cigars! – and tries to trade on the invite to buy the attention of a youngish female reporter, breaks promises to guy pals to do so. Anyone read Neil Strauss’ book?
@ Nash
Interesting note. Just the ‘theory’ that worked…. To my mind the beauty of having theory, methods, and even ‘routines’ to say over and over is that they allow you to actually be more in the moment when you ‘run’ them.
‘Tain’t What You Do (It’s the Way That You Do It) [Oliver and Young]
I have found that the more that I find myself doing and saying similar things to people in repeated interactions, then I can actually be much more aware of my own emotions, and of other people’s emotions. More ‘present to the moment,’ as they say. Because the conversation and procedures are automatic habits I’m not thinking about what should I be saying or doing next. I’m more hearing the words that come out of my mouth somehow and noticing how they sound and how a girl reacts. And seeing her pause at the door… ‘Is this your… house?’ Without any thought of thinking ‘what is going to happen and what about what am I going to do next…’ I hindsight I could tell you exactly what would happen next, it was already written. But in that moment I’m just enjoying it unfolding.
More recently I have been taking ‘myself’ (and the girl) out of the equation by noticing what Nick calls ‘the DNA tug’ and crediting some higher power with the motivation and will. Sort of looking at my own ego as more of a puppet rather than an author.
Now I’m wondering if soon I’ll be able to talk about just the ‘theory’ …
“and tries to trade on the invite to buy the attention of a youngish female reporter, breaks promises to guy pals to do so.”
My take is that he has both a touch of the narcissism and the passive aggressive syndrome. He gets his kicks on the route 66 of slyly making his superiors squirm. “Take that! I made you down! Ha ha, not so superior now, are you!”
And he was making a power play.
Look at the mans body language. Very effeminate and smarmy. That’s gamma. He has to attack from the behind. He was making a power grab from the behind. He wanted to own the conference. To choose the attendees, to guide and own the frame
Your brain makes it’s best assessments with separate info channels. Watch with no audio. Then listen with no video.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1136250288212520960/pu/vid/1280×720/SdZ_YxVU1mBjD08V.mp4?tag=10
He comes across as Saturday Night Live’s church lady (attribution Nash) on video (with an extra dose of self satisfied smarm), and his voice is so shaky uncertain.
>>What you are completely changes how you are perceived and dealt with.
To the red pill audience yes, but to the younger me this statement is not complete. I needed to understand that it was not enough to BE a credible and worthy guy. I needed to communicate it with what Owen Cook calls honest signals.
To the current me, I understand that radical honesty and communicating effectively – not holding back things that one might deem impolite or impolitic – are part of What you are.* The younger me took some things for granted that simply were not true at all …. leaving the above statement sort of, ,,, I think I would have thought unfair; not the way people should act. Dumb and naive for certain.
>>And you are a sexually class-mobile person. You can change from zero to hero, if you’d like to, and are willing to put in the time and effort.
THIS was the most revolutionary idea for me. A truly infectious meme. I had always regarded the outgoing and charismatic personality as an inborn trait. I never dreamed that it could be a learned behavior. AND I never understood that it was an underlying foundational trait that makes a man sexually attractive to women. Of course as a guy I was equally, maybe more attracted to shy quiet women vs outgoing women.
* A note on semantics: Patrice O’neal always talked about ‘Who you are’ vs. ‘What you are.’ What xsplat refers to here is what Patrice would cal ‘WHO you are.’ Meaning the choices you have made in life, as opposed to your underlying animal nature, which comprised the ‘WHAT you are.’
“THIS was the most revolutionary idea for me.” (sexually class mobile) “Of course as a guy I was equally, maybe more attracted to shy quiet women vs outgoing women.”
Seemingly tangential thoughts can relate in important ways.
Edward de Bono claims that disparate thoughts are the essence of how creative conceptual insight occurs in the brain.
Let’s see where we could go with this.
… you wake up to being able to grow into an empowered and exciting to others sexuality.
… you realize that others are also growing into this.
… you are attracted to others who are at the same learning stage.
Well, I don’t like my little mind experiment, because I also love girls at the exploration stage. Let’s try again with that new info:
I like girls at the new info stage, and girls like exploring:
… she likes to be guided
… he likes to refresh being fresh
“radical honesty and communicating effectively – not holding back things that one might deem impolite or impolitic – are part of What you are” vs ” I think I would have thought unfair; not the way people should act. ” Yes, there is a lifelong pain of yearning for communication. People do actively avoid communication, and yes, it is painful.
There is no ultimate solution to either this nor existential angst, however we can make a few worthy bargains.
We can persuade in a way that both entertains us and our audience. We can have healthy boundaries and expectations. We can magnetize into our worlds or suck up into other worlds our hoped for family.