First published 2011

Copyright © Street Hypnosis Limited 2012
(UK Registered: 08220344)
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyrights
reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
Photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written
permission of the copyright owner.
Concept, Philosophy, Model and Techniques unless otherwise
stated were developed independently and structured
accordingly in written form throughout this book by Vince
Lynch, of VinceLynch.com
Wrote in coffee shops, hotel rooms & airports whilst
touring, including; Los Angeles, Melbourne, Barcelona,
Amsterdam, San Francisco, Ibiza, Paris, Las Vegas, Nice, New
York, Madrid, London, Lisbon etc.





Introduction
This book is on pushing persuasion and attraction as far as it can
go…. Most persuasion texts focus on techniques that advise use
on people who are already somewhat responsive to your
message. Rather than building responsiveness. This means that
four fifths of the audience is lost. Using their method, we simply
cannot convince everyone.
After working delivering workshops and seminars on these
psychological topics for several years, I came to a response on
how to build responsive audiences.
Many of us, don’t set out to persuade others. We tend to have
the attitude “Live and let live” this mentality is that we do not
feel we should actively persuade others according to our desires.
They say people should be able to do, think and feel the way
they want to. Andrew K. Gulledge (2004) Nevertheless, people
are undoubtedly influenced constantly by their surroundings. If
you’ve ever communicated anything to anyone, then you’ve
probably used persuasion techniques whether you realize it or
not. And even if you haven’t communicated, you’ve remained
silent, you’ve still communicated something.
I’ve spent several years, researching, and socializing with people
who make a living off, and genuinely believe that they can
convince others to do anything they suggest. Some of them are
magicians who want participants to really have faith in the
magic they’ve seen, street hypnotists who want to see if they can
convince random strangers to hand over their belongings and
cash, seducers who really believe they have the ultimate code to
making every girl love you.
As a result, of my lifestyle, this book wasn’t wrote in isolation, it
was composed while growing up, during which; partying,
lecturing, traveling, and researching with those who are
regularly citied as the finest hypnotists, magicians, and seducers
in the world, with quantities of the book wrote while traveling in
Las Vegas, New York, London, LA, Milan, Lisbon, Paris and
more.
I was every so often asked as a youngster “What are you going
to do for a career when you grow up?” I suspect few children
say “Hypnotist”, and neither did I. When asked I always
responded “I’m a philosopher”.
I never set out to turn out to be an expert in social skills. I
inquisitively wanted to know whether humans consciously think
or not. Whether we really have power over of the decisions we
make, or whether it was all pre-determined. Along the way in
satisfying this question I found myself surrounded by people
who frequently broke the rules of what we consider ‘normal’
social behaviour, which I found fascinating and quickly directed
my attention towards.
Until recently, improving social skills, particularly to the degree
we are referring to, really wasn't relevant to human life. People
tended to stick to their local social networks, infrequently meet
new people, travel, etc. Today, the average guy, can
communicate to thousands of people a second, the internet has
truly sparked a revolution (think of the social media and social
video giants), and suddenly monopolizing on social sciences
suddenly becomes paramount to success.
Previously, for most people, hypnosis didn't exist. It was
irrelevant and to say in phrase; ‘beside the point’ for their lives.
Even though a hypnotist seems to be able to make anyone do
anything… it didn’t really matter because the immediate benefits
of how one could use it in their own life wasn’t immediately
obvious.
The only reason an individual might see hypnosis as a benefit to
them, is if they were looking for a second job, or something to do
during retirement, and therefore become a hypnotherapist or
stage hypnotist.
Sure, we’ve seen hypnosis on TV, and the idea of being able to
make anyone do anything is miraculous. But people simply
don't believe in things that don’t benefit and are unrelated to
their lives.
This book is an endeavour to revolutionize the way hypnotists
accomplish hypnosis, to make their performances more valuable.
Then also, to offer a guiding light on how to change the public
perception of hypnosis.
Let’s ponder what cool, sexy and fashionable looks like.
Consider the cultures of snowboarding and surfing. They are
sports, that are surrounded by a way of life of an elusive bunch
of moneyed young 20-29 year old's with big shoulders who revel
in competition and partying in exorbitant locations, yet everyone
in the world wants to move to those locations to learn how to
snowboard and surf.
Their following is massive, and isn’t down necessarily to the
thrill of the sport. But a combination of factors that includes, the
element of risk, the desirability of the crowd, the dramatic feel of
the location, the partying and the competition.
For thousands of years philosophers have looked at human act,
and questioned what drives and motivates people to commit one
activity over another and how society as a whole can decide
what actions are most valuable.
Imagine walking in to beach resort, one evening and witnessing
a frenzied hoard of ambitious young men, loudly and
boytriously make competitive remarks at the TV with crazed
excitement. It’s the world championship of hypnosis, where
international mind control and seduction artists fly in to test
their elite skills on the wealthiest men and the hottest women,
with conquests of epic proportions.
….Maybe that's just a dream but since 2003 I have lived that
dream in my mind. Many of us grew up believing that to
persuade people we had to force them using negative language.
We are here to show that fun and having a good time attracts
and persuades to a world class standard.
There’s plenty of people who’s living depends on persuading
others to do and believe what we want, politicians convince us
that their idea to produce spending cuts will benefit society, or
that the tax they are placing is necessary in order to defend our
kingdom.
Some sales people claim that they can get any customer to buy
anything. Regardless of price, its often stated that 20% of the
salesman within a company make up 80% of the sales. Some
guys really seem that they can have us what we believe
whatever they would like.
Con-men seem able to walk away with people's money, and the
victims were completely convinced the man was doing them a
favour. Typically describing him as seeming so kind, or nice,
magicians do magic tricks on us, where the trick is happening
right before our eyes, yet we fail to notice the things that cause
the magic to happen.
Hypnotists on television seem to be able to convince people who
look just like people we know, to dance around believing they
are Michael Jackson, or forgetting their own names.
What exactly is going on, and what do all these types of
influence have in common? Modern research and perspectives
amongst various communities have solutions as to how we can
become better at how to use social skills to our advantage.
We all have things that we would like to sway others of. Perhaps
it’s that girl we want to go on a date with us, or to make the job
interviewer want to hire us, or an entire populace to feel
compelled to purchase from our advertisements as a capitalist.
Persuasion, like hypnosis, doesn't work all of the time. There are
plenty of instances when persuasion doesn't work. Studies show
that you might be able to convince as high as 88% of people to
do something, but then what happened to the other 12% of those
people, why did they not become convinced, or believe what
you suggested?
In the past, those interested in these fields, wrote off the failures
as 'noise', stating “well you can't get everyone” but that is simply
not in line with the modern research perspectives.
I’ve watched countless street hypnotist and seducer, move from
bar to bar. Seeming to look for that magic social code, which
makes people responsive to them. Some months I’ve witnessed
hypnotists hypnotize everyone they speak too without a single
failure restarting their record for months. Other month’s regular
failures occur as if the “Only 20% of people can be hypnotized”
misconception is law. During these months, these hypnotists
seem to lack that magic ‘x’ factor.
What is that thing that makes us sometimes able to hypnotize
everyone and other times we can’t seem to get people engaged
to us?
The times when subjects are unresponsive to persuaders and
hypnotists suggestions, seem unable to concentrate, and seem
unemotionally involved in the suggestions the hypnotist seems
to offer.
There are methods to create attention and direct its path. Those
techniques are in this book, and by using them your results will
shoot through the roof!
By looking to genre’s that are built about creating a ‘cool’ brand,
about creating that “ummppphhh” that gives it the power, we
can get a sense of what the magic factor is that sometimes makes
us completely unstoppable!
Everyone in the world has read some kind of book on
persuasion or body language, you are working your way up the
ladder as part of a worldwide club of Business Leaders, Movie
Stars, and everyone who has the belief that by improving their
social skills will make them influence.
I, the author of this book. Am a hypnotist, I've been fascinated
with and taught social skills, since a young age. People often ask,
me “Can you make anyone do anything?” I reply “Yes”. They
ask “What like a hypnotist?” I say yes. They then ask whether I
perform a lot of shows or help people stop smoking or lose
weight.
The truth is, the ability to get inside someone else's mind is so
truly profound... its value is infinitely greater than either of those
two occupations could possibly encompass.
After you've read this book, don't be afraid, to email me.
Despite huge demand, I always endeavor to reply.
I like you, have a massive interest in a fascinating subject.
Consider this membership
You’re in a very elite club

A Man and His Introduction
Do you exist? How do you know define yourself? Where did
‘the you’ come from? Is there an ultimate version of you; a you
++.
The writer Clifton Paul Fadiman once wrote; “A sense of
humour is the ability to understand a joke - and that the joke is
oneself.” Was he simply referring to the fact that something is
funny when you realize that it applies to you; that when
someone trips and a pie lands in their face you laugh because
you imagine the silly-event could easily happen to you.
That a mistake or blunder of another, can be interpreted through
the self; we laugh because we know we are just as silly. And
maybe to be truly entertained for a lifetime requires an
understanding of the humorous nature of the self. Sure it’s just a
quotation; but we’ve all heard the truism “Life’s a joke”, but
what exactly are people who spurt out this phrase referring to.
Maybe they are stating something about how unexpected life
can be serving you a dish – or a strange tasting medicine you
didn’t expect; perhaps they are referring to some brutal form of
irony like life causing you to meet a long lost lover on your
wedding day to another woman.
What seems certain is that life is unpredictable, everything
seems to change; and certain things happen in our lives that
force us to reinterpret the very nature of our self – this might
make us laugh, cry, sink into a deep depression, cause you panic
& paranoia, send you on a mission of revenge, or turn your ego
into a fortress.
Imagine you’re in a museum of art and you saw a work that was
so utterly distinct in its own right, that it puts the other
paintings/works into contrast just by its very existence. Bright
lights, dark colours, pitches & tones of sound, force us to
reinterpret their surroundings – ideas seem to change, mean a
different thing; if you go into another culture you quickly realize
that nothing accurately translates from a foreign language to
your mother tongue; and then you end up wondering what
really translates when two people of the same culture and
language speak.
Under all the chaos of multiple meanings, and senses of the
world; we need to make some decisions about how to live our
lives; how can we be virtuous. Does our virtue, ethics, morality
come from our own internal self-talk; our ability to think
consciously to define ourselves?
Or is it outside of our control; if morality was outside the realm
of absolute free choice, then it would seem it would be possible
to change the actions, behaviours, emotions, attitudes, thoughts
and morality of others around us.
Perhaps we are trapped inside our own mental prison that
causes our self-destruction; that we down to some way that we
operate our choices, cause us to be defeated by our adversaries.
You might at this point question “Adversaries – I have none?”
how you define others comes from your philosophical choices
about the self – when you state that you have no adversaries you
might be stating that you are so unique and different to everyone
else that you aren’t competing with them.
Or you might be arguing that you have no adversaries – because
you are not against anyone, against anything – replies to this
could be numerous; political activist Malcolm X stated “If you
don't stand for something you will fall for anything.” we each
have either consciously or unconsciously made fundamental
philosophical decisions about life; even in this very paragraph I
refer to an unconscious – if you don’t know about a part of your
consciousness how can you be sure it exists? And how can you
be sure that your thoughts are really your own, and not the
equivalent of you watching a TV program produced by your
brain that advertises thoughts to you?
According to Ayn Rand (year, philosophy who needs it) “Most
men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the
answers to which underlie man's every thought, feeling and
action, whether he is consciously aware of it or not: Where am I?
How do I know it? What should I do?”
“The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its
principles from the cultural atmosphere around them--from
schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies,
television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of
men: the philosophers.” Rand (1984) in other words man's
values and emotions are determined by his fundamental views
of life.
One might argue; well I read a great deal of scientific journals so
I’m able to decide what I think about human behaviour, by
reading recent studies – but what they are ignoring is the
method they go about logically inferring a theory from the
studies they’ve read, and the theory, reasons for the research, the
historical-cultural and academic aspects that inspired the
research; then on top of that the authors writing style, and the
way he interprets the research were all decided from an
underlying philosophy.
From this we could hypothesis that in order to make sense of the
world we must a) engage with it a lot – i.e. through books, films,
debates, etc. and then spend another portion of time analysing
what we have learnt and what from this we can truly say we
know about ourselves and the world around us; this point is
further shown by Nietzsche, he writes ‘To become a thinker;
how can anyone become a thinker if he does not spend at least a
third of the day without passions, people and books?’ Nietzsche
(2000)
What we want to know as humans might be “How can we be
happy, without harming others, and maybe further how can I
help others be happy too?” at least this is the question posed by
Jeremy Bentham; the founding father of the philosophical theory
of Utilitarianism; he believed that the true goal that humanity
should be striving for is personal happiness for its members.
Utilitarianism is an exciting theory because it seems to offer such
a simple solution as to how to live; - what goals to choose, what
to focus on in our lives, we will later go through the flaws of the
theory and throughout the course of the book a model of
morality for interacting with others, and what we mean by
consciousness should be defined to the best of our ability in light
of the central theme of this text.
During university I, like all undergraduate students was able to
undertake a research project; I investigated the “theoretical
perspective that until individuals decide to do something
definite in their actually worldly experiences they could be
anything, and all these anything’s represent conflicting
personality parts and rumination”.
That seems like a very wordy sentence; but to state clearly what
was of interest is’ how individuals choose their life goals’, and
whether individuals who had a kind of process of which goals
they select, or at least clearly knew what they want were
happier, and more confident than people who weren’t clear
about what they want to achieve in the future.
Whether “Achievement goals direct the attentional focus of
individuals such that situational appraisals and self-related
cognitions are framed by the perspective implied by the
goal…achievement goals facilitate the control and value
appraisals underlying achievement emotions, thereby
influencing these emotions.” Elliot (2006)
Alternatively “It has been shown that ‘highly abstract goals (e.g.
getting to know people) tends to be associated with
psychological distress whereas low level strivings (e.g. to speak
to more strangers) are linked to greater levels of psychological
well-being” Brewer, M., Hewstone, M (2004:174) as stated not all
goals seem to cause psychological satisfaction as a result of their
pursuit, that it seems as if there needs to be some process of goal
selection in order to result in high self-esteem.
"When man is born, the human race as well as the individual, he
is thrown out of a situation which was definite, as definite as the
instincts, into a situation which is indefinite, uncertain and
open." Fromm, E. (2006)
Men are crippled by uncertainty or at least that’s the view of
various researchers into the psychological field of goal pursuit,
but philosophy Ayn Rand relates this back to philosophy.
She believes that when we consider a goal or desire; our first
question is “Can I achieve it?” she thinks this as a mistake,
because the goal or desire will always be unachievable in light of
their current abilities. That people are questioning whether they
have an innate ability to do the goal they set themselves? Which
of course the answer is no, nothing is certain.
No great composer suddenly woke up as a child and said “Yes,
I’m innately a great composer” or Mozart wouldn’t have thought
to himself as a child “tomorrow I’m going to produce the
greatest musical works in history”
From this we can see that there are doubts to be considered in
the hypothesis “goal pursuit alone is enough to result in an
integrated personality – and high self-esteem” we don’t deny
that in some cases a goal reduces internal conflict as one
becomes more focused on an important and meaningful goal,
that this gives their life structure and direction and allows one to
be able to distinguish which ideas, thoughts, and activities,
promote their goal; and how to recognize those that distract.
This integrated man sounds perfect. Imagine if you made sense,
if all your beliefs, and views about the world perfectly fitted
together, perhaps you would have confidence to speak to deliver
a lecture on any idea you so choose or was asked to speak on
because you’d be sure that you would be able to go off into
endless interlocking stories about the concept in question and
how it relates to other important topics of existence.
Ayn Rand defines this integrated being further by stating
“because he has no intellectual contradiction, then he has no
inner conflict”, “he has no change in him, he is indivisible, he is
perfect” Rand, A. et al (2009)
She continues “In order for a person’s countless daily decisions
on myriad issues to work together to advance his best interest,
they must be made on a coordinated, rational basis. Rand, A.
Smith, T. (2007) like as we pointed out earlier scientific studies
only make sense when read by a reader who has some means of
interpreting, and inducing cultural implications from it, likewise
the same goes for the self the opportunities you consider
whether to accept them as goals (& desires) can only be
interpreted, logically selected from an underlying philosophy of
self – an epistemology.
Where are you? Why are you here? What are you supposed to
do with your life? Which goals are important? How are you
going to kick ass over ideas? Voltaire famously said “The more I
read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am
enabled to affirm that I know nothing” Nietzsche said “Better
know nothing than know many half-truths” Socrates answers
are problems of how what we can be sure of – giving ourselves
some integrity and security in our own ego he stated “The only
true wisdom is knowing you know nothing… “ he continues by
stating the an answer to becoming smarter than any other man,
he states; “In knowing that you know nothing, makes you the
smartest of all”.
Once upon a time a man called Chairephon consulted the great
Delphic oracle, Chairephon asked “Who is the wisest man alive”
the Delphic Oracle replied “There is no one alive more wise that
Socrates”. Robert William Jordan (1990)
When Cairephon told Socrates that the Oracle predicts that he is
the wisest man alive, he refuted the claim, saying that the Oracle
must be mistaken. “So he set out to meet someone wiser than
himself. He consulted widely, but came to the conclusion that
there was a sense in which he was wiser than those he talked to;
because unlike them he was aware that he knew nothing”
Socrates didn’t seem to have a particular message to propagate;
although Plato was keen to find the ultimate source of
knowledge, to properly define things for what they are through
discourse. Socrates goal seemed somewhat different; as
commented by Robinson “Socrates was certainly a unique
moralist, he hoped to make men more virtuous by logic”
Robinson, R. (1953)
The key to his philosophical debate “Socrates like Descartes,
believes in the value of a method in philosophy and in the value
of a method of doubt” Robinson, R. (1953: 63)
Descartes shows his method of doubting in order to disclosure
true knowledge through the following statements; “I suppose
therefore that all things I see are false; I persuade myself that
none of those things ever existed that my deceptive memory
represents to me; I suppose I have no senses; I believe that a
body, figure, extension, movement and place are only fictions of
my mind. Then what can be considered true” Descartes, R. (1996:
79)
We each have a sense of existing. The philosophy Descartes
famously proclaimed “I think therefore I exist” he made this
statement because he wanted to show that we are not dreaming,
we are not inside a computer program, or robots that believe we
ought to exist because we see the world – for example a
camcorder sees the world but we wouldn’t say a camcorder is a
person.
Throughout the ages it’s been debated where ideas come from?
The philosophers Plato and Socrates seemed to believe in
another universe of ideas from which we are born into when we
are born in this world – where we innately know mathematics,
the nature of things, perhaps abstract concepts, that all of us are
born with art, culture, philosophy before we even witness any
input through our senses.
Plato believed our senses were fallible; it’s never truly clear
whether Socrates believed this as all of the accounts of what
Socrates believed came through the writings of Plato about the
discussions they had. He states that the objects of the senses; i.e.
the way we view the world through our senses, is forever
changing; that we don’t truly see things as they are; that I don’t
have a true sense of the colour blue through my vision, or truly
understand the call of a bird. That I constantly see the colour
blue differently and the call of the bird is forever changing
through my ability to hear.
Plato says “I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is
enlightened or un-enlighted: Behold! Human beings living in an
underground den/a cave” “They have an inability to move as
they are chained to the wall” Plato continues “and they see only
their own shadows or the shadows of one another, which the fire
throws on the opposite wall of the cave”
Plato says “To them, the truth would be literally nothing but the
shadows of the images” Plato (360 B.C.E )
This claim might sound ridiculous to untrained ears; but that’s
the very point in itself isn’t it – through training your ears will
change? Or is it through training the way you hear changes? Or
is it the idea of the statement that is miscommunicated from its
true source. How can we truly know what the bird sounds like;
because to one listener they might hear a broader range of
pitches, of squeaks and squawks than we as a listener are
capable of retrieving.
“The beginning of science is the recognition that the simplest
phenomena of ordinary life raise quite serious problems: Why
are they as they are, instead of some different way?” Chomsky,
N. (1987)
For example; consider a cup of coffee, not only does every cup of
coffee taste different, the feelings created by the coffee are never
the same, it looks different in every different light etc. the
differences between two cups of coffee are so great, that they
actually contradict one another beyond the point of repair, it’s
hard to see any remote similarity between the two cups of coffee.
This problem is even greater when you consider each sip from a
single cup of coffee, every bit of taste, changing, and the caffeine
in your brain changing impact moment to moment.
Plato believes that there must be a world of coffee’s; that our
ability to know what a coffee is, doesn’t come from the empirical
world – reality as we see it through our senses; but instead from
an esoteric world that we can barely remember, where the true
form of the coffee existed in the way it’s supposed to be, the way
it truly is, the way we want to know it to be – and the only way
we can even get close to understanding the nature of the form of
a coffee, is by investigating our innate knowledge about coffee’s;
through this dialogue with ourselves or shared with another
philosopher we can acquire the knowledge of a coffee.
For this reason he believes we gain no knowledge through our
senses, and for that reason knowledge must be innate – already
within us, and these models and templates for ideas allow us to
recognize an idea we witness through our senses in a form truer
than the one our senses actually perceives.
Plato wrote that one cannot truly understand the beauty and
logic philosophy of the ideas expressed between him and
Socrates through reading the dialogues he wrote, because the
writing and the reading take away the true meaning. Once again
showing that the true ideas can only be contained within the
mind, and therefore can only must exist in the mind before
witnessing the world.
“Seeking the universal” i.e. finding rules and defining the true
nature of ideas, i.e. stating a definition of the meaning of things
became the focus on the attention for Plato and Socrates;
discussing what constitutes a particular thing; finding the
violations to the rule to test the principle as a way of discovering
what remains of the thing after philosophical attack.
Plato took this approach to believe that there must be “a world
of ideas where they exist in their universal sense” since there are
no common definition of the sense of an object to be acquired
through our senses, that these ideas these forms can only be
understood through participating in deducing them; through
reason. Seddon, F. (2008)
You can see that although Plato’s point is dogmatic he definitely
has somewhat of an argument. The reality is; as Descartes says “I
think therefore I exist” that our ability to think and reason is
interconnected with our existence.
Our very ability to make such a statement ‘I think therefore I
exist’ constitutes an identity. We do exist, the way Descartes
came to believe that we can trust ideas through our senses was
to claim “I conceive of a God, this is easy for me to conceive its
part of my being it was always there, it must be within me from
the moment I came to exist, and therefore is part of my existence;
there is a God” and then to say “A God who brought me into
existence, wouldn’t deceive me through my senses” that his
senses must be accurate because there is a God who wouldn’t
see point in misleading Descartes if he showed the very kindness
to bring Descartes into existence in the first place.
Descartes is mistaken about ideas being acquired through our
senses and their accuracy, as already shown through the coffee
example.
The problem of what function our eyes and ears serve would
later be solved by Darwin, showing that our senses exist because
of survival amongst all kinds of processes that cause the
destruction of billions of facets of humanity, while some
maintain and survive through our innateness passed along
through reproduction. That in a way our senses exist because its
practical for them to exist in the way they do, and that our
particular opportunities and threats over the discourse of recent
history has for whatever reason allowed us to become the most
powerful species above nature on the earth in its existence.
The question is; how do our senses inform us? Aristotle the
student of Plato disagreed with the world of forms; our innate
ability to understand the true nature of an idea. Aristotle
definitely believed that the true nature of an idea could be
discovered.
But he believed that we are only born with an innate ability to
reason, to logically induce from our environment; he didn’t deny
that objects acquired through our senses lack consistency, that
they change depending on when, how, and other things about
the way they were witnessed and by whom, he believed that
from our witnessing we could take note, and logically realize
what the idea was attempting to represent using our underlying
sense of logic and reason.
The same way a baby learns about the world as it witnesses and
interacts with it; that a baby can logically induce an idea from its
presence in the real world “worms taste bad”
Aristotle set up a school of philosophy; where persons could
learn to debate and discuss the meaning of things like Plato and
Socrates did; because Aristotle believed like Socrates and Plato
did that it’s this underlying ability to use the logical arguments,
understand the logical fallacies, and contradictions amongst
things that allow you define the thing.
In other words; he believed without a foundation and constant
application of (in) philosophical understanding you couldn’t
understand the nature of an object regardless of how many times
you witness it.
That the acquisition of knowledge requires two things the real
world – witnessed through our senses; and a foundation in
philosophical understanding of reason, of logic, of statistics, of
contradiction, and our innate ability to be stimulated by and
categorize information.
“Aristotle understands a man to be; one that looks almost
scientifically at reality, gathers information, isolates and
classifies phenomena, detects similarities, discerns patterns and
regularity and obtains essences from which concepts and laws
are constructed; that people use inductive logic to create a
world.” Younkins ,E. (2005: 23)
Aristotle believed that all objects that we witness in the world –
are attempting to reach the status of platonic ideas – not that
platonic ideas of things genuinely exist outside the realm of
empiricism but in the mind. But that an objects true sense of self
is to express the platonic-ness. But this can only be done through
people minds.
So all objects, including cups of coffee – want to be their true
form, they have a sense of being that is platonic, but can be
discovered through discourse of their different states witnessed
through the senses. We like objects need to actualize our essence
– achieve our higher state of being; for this reason Aristotle
dedicated a great portion of philosophic writings to Virtue –
how to be a man of good, and he wrote about the structure of
story, of Greek Mythology to construct the ideas of the virtuous
man – the hero, and Greek Tragedies like Achilles heel.
This is a story about a man who was the most handsome of all
Men, he assembled an army against a large fortress called ‘troy’;
he was completely indestructible; perfect, all but his heel. His
heel, i.e. the fatty bottom bit of the foot at the back that usually
rests on the floor; when injured would be enough to prevent him
moving adequately enough to protect himself, and if injured in
battle would lead to his fall from grace. An Achilles heel is a
weakness that someone has in their philosophical
underpinnings; in their virtue, the nature of their soul.
That the heel is to represent some part of his mind, a weakness
of character that will eventually lead to one’s downfall, it’s not
the injury by an opponent that leads to the death of Achilles
philosophically speaking. Achilles while he was an infant his
mother was approached by an Oracle who informed that
Achilles would be killed in battle by an arrow to his foot. This
part of the story is to indicate that the character flaw was there
from his beginnings as an infant; that its intertwined with her
very nature – and hence predictable; as foreseen by the Oracle.
Despite his mother’s best attempts to make him strong,
powerful, and a great man… wasn’t enough to make him a
virtuous man – and thus his death and his life were intertwined.
Of course it’s only a story; but there is some truth in it; your
goals that you aspire towards should integrate with your unique
opportunities and underlying philosophy – to use your perfectly
aligned and integrated self as an indestructible force to face the
world. Absolute power is consequence to having an absolute
soul.
Ayn Rand continues to explain “Reason, is not merely a
distinguishing attribute of man; it is his fundamental attribute—
his basic means of survival. Therefore, whatever reason requires
in order to function is a necessity of human life.” Rand, A. (1971)
Aristotle deduces that an object can only actualize its ultimate
form – when it achieves an identity of formal and final causation.
That a man should use his logic, his reason, his ability to force
the world into his directly as a means to achieving the ultimate
end – his own perfection. That a man should only choose the
activities, and reject that rest that are focused on his distinct
qualities; his goals; but these opportunities can only be
recognized by using his innate ability to reason and focusing on
the self.
The Ancient Greek world of ethics, of virtual doesn’t necessarily
endorse egoism, i.e. selfishly throwing your weight around the
world – defeating your opponents, outsmarting everyone
around you, taking what you want regardless of cost to anyone
else. But it definitely does not endorse altruism – helping your
fellow man for their own gain – this in itself does not serve the
ultimate goal of perfection of form. That enlightenment can only
be achieved by discovering true knowledge, of the self.
“You can’t cheat an honest man. He has to have Larceny in his
heart in the first place” W. C. Fields
John Stuart Mill believes that by us interacting with objects, and
gaining ideas about them through our senses; allows knowledge
acquisition, he explains “The external cause to which we ascribe
our sensations is like – when I see and touch a piece of Gold, I
am conscious of a sensation of yellow colour, and sensations of
hardness and weight; and by varying the mode of handling, I
may add to these sensations many others completely distinct
from them. The sensations are all conscious but I consider them
as produced by something not only existing independently of
my will, but external to my body and mind.” He explains that
when we think back of the gold and all these ideas come to mind
at the same time that Locke and Hartley dubbed this ‘sensation’
of remembering, the experience of a complex idea.
For the purposes of this book we are attempting to ground the
philosophical undertones of the text before we continue to
understand the underpinnings of an idea.
The philosophy of acquiring ‘ideas’ is known as a theory of
learning; how can we learn anything? Because we seem to be
reliant on the external world to begin our quest for the source of
a true idea – we are going to assume that the external world does
exist and that there are other objects that exist and are within this
world.
We’ve discussed two different versions of knowledge
acquisition; and we’ve touched upon more. It should be noted
that not all thinkers believe knowledge can be achieved
whatsoever; in fact it’s quite in fashion amongst the general
public to say that ‘we can’t be truly sure of anything’.
What we are alluding to saying is that; because the knowledge of
an idea can only be acquired through the senses; then if “we
think therefore we exist” we must also perceive information
from an outside source. Although this doesn’t solve the issue of
whether we are inside the matrix or not is irrelevant because the
concept of other objects – other things that exist – can be show to
be true. At least the idea of other things that we can perceive and
learn more about do exist that we perceive through our senses.
We’ve purposely come to this conclusion not to reject the
physical world – not only because it seems self-evident, but also
because Aristotle’s description of learning from interacting with
the world raises some further philosophical implications that
provide further dialogue into understanding ourselves. When
it’s said that an individual learns about ideas through
intentionally interacting with objects and logically analysing
them using his sense of reason then it’s said to be the philosophy
of intentionality.
Intentionality is the theory proposes that we interact with the
environment around us, to learn about the nature of things; and
ourselves.
A question of the above is whether our thoughts represent
something that actually exists in reality. Can we for example
imagine things that don’t actually exist, for example “A unicorn”
is an object that doesn’t exist in real life that we can think about.
Intentionality on the whole answers “no, certainly not!”. – That
mental states are directed about objects or states of affairs.
“If, for example, I have a belief, it must be a belief that such and
such is the case; if I have a fear, it must be a fear of something or
that something will occur; if I have a desire, it must be a desire to
do something or that something should happen or be the case; if
I have an intentional it must be to do something” John R. Searle:
(1983:1)
John Stuart Mill writes “If you call virtue an entity, you are …
suspected of believing it to be a substance … . Every word which
was originally intended to connote mere existence, seems, after a
time, to enlarge its connotation to separate existence” Mill, J.
(1843)
In other words he is saying that we can only perceive things that
certainly exist – these objects. The immediate criticism comes to
mind that “well I can perceive the idea of a Unicorn, but
Unicorns certainly don’t exist” however John Stuart Mill and
other philosophers like him and a response for such a criticism.
Their reply is that; that we slowly begin separately qualities
from objects, as if they can be separated. Similarly to the coffee
example we began our debate with, stating that two coffee’s
which for all intents and purposes in life seem identical but do
not in fact bare any resemblance to one another. That we cannot
logically separate attributes of a object – another thing that
certainly exists, from the thing itself. Even though we can’t
logically separate attributes from things, it’s a human mistake of
language which we all carry out.
To put simply; when we invent a unicorn we take the horn of
another animal, like a rhino, or a horn like shape, and place it on
the head of a horse; and then call it a new thing, but really its
attributes have no real character; not like the character of
millions of years of evolution; they represent a silly human
whim; which then critics claim is a completely new beast; but
really is just a horse with a horn glued to its nose.
He states “Attributes are gradually deprived from the source of
their existence; as if they could live independent of it,” which
based on the thought of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato in the sense
of ‘forms’ they believe that the attribute could certainly not live
independently on the objects existence – the attribute is
contained within the very nature of the form.
He continues “An attribute, say the school logicians; must be the
attribute of something; goodness must be the goodness of
something; and if this something should cease to exist, or
should cease to be connected with the attribute, the existence of
the attribute will also be at an end.” Mill, J. (1843: 36)
John Stuart Mill believes it’s a construct of language, of people
trying to describe things that causes us to detach attributes from
the objects they belong to. He states that scientists and
philosophers think they are sought of clever, and thus are
addicted to taking valuable words and using them inaccurately
to describe another thing – which they don’t logically serve.
Mill, J. (1843: 31)
Chomsky introduces the terms “I-language” to illustrate his
thesis that language is about the intention to relate the social or
the external world to the self. That all conversations with
anyone or with the self are about something you either desire, or
want to avoid – that the very nature of a thought – is the desire
to move towards or away from a thing; that all learning is done
through the self. Chomsky, N. (2000)
What he means to say is, even when we speak of the planet
Jupiter. We are expressing ‘I-language’ that somehow the planet
Jupiter and the way we are speaking about it relates to the self;
it’s a way of our ego interacting with the world – expressing our
intentions about the state of things.
Likewise to Noam Chomsky; John Stuart Mill believes that all
volitions or acts of the will – consist of the idea of objects and
their interaction with the self – in the past, future and present.
That whenever we think we are considering the usefulness of
objects to further ourselves to gain higher utility – that we
constantly think of further ways to become more happy – to
further our development.
According to Noam Chomsky, John Stuart Mill and others – on
object-subject relations; we treat objects as if they exist, but also
as if they are separated from us. But yet we act as if they have
their own life force, their own sense of ‘being’. That when we
speak of other things such as inanimate objects, we relate to
them as if they are like ourselves – contain a soul, an ability to
think, be happy and so on.
You might notice a child playing with a toy cuddly bear, and
stating that the bear feels happy when he is in a certain part of
the house, and needs looking after, and speaking to several times
a day – it seems a natural human trait to assume other objects
have an ability to think and feel, and have access to a soul.
Freud referenced to this as projection, or transference but as a
whole it underpinned his whole theory of unconscious energy
and its sources. John Stuart Mill stated that objects exist within
their own sense of unity; and Plato referred to objects having an
ultimate form; to quote the TV science fiction humour show Red
Dwarf “If there’s no heaven for calculators, then where do all the
calculators go?”
Of course when we speak of objects and their ‘being’ we might
not be referring to something equivalent to a thought but with
regards to a tree growing its roots through the soil we might say
that its exercising a form of volition over nature; that the tree has
characteristics unique to its own nature, and this sense of unique
being can refer to inanimate objects such as cups of coffee’s or
rocks.
That when we describe a Coffee or a Rock, we are just describing
them by comparing them against things – we are not really
talking about their individual unique nature, Erich Fromm
believes that when we make assumptions about what something
is or isn’t, how it’s like or unlike, another thing we are only
referring to the appearance of the thing. Not its essence, its being
Fromm, E. (1976:20 )
In order to show that there is some consensus that – objects (such
as ideas & other people) are understood only through the self –
and that the ego itself is an object separate from the soul - we
should explore the works of Freud – on object relations – how
we come to understand the external world – and Piaget – how
we learn to assimilate language – how we identify with external
objects and then internalize them into the self. How does this
process of identifying with others – such as parental figures –
allow us to internalize the knowledge we acquire through
interaction with them – for example the ability to learn language,
are we born with the tools to learn a language or do we learn
language through interacting with others?
We are about to cover another story, like the earlier one about
Achilles from one of the great Greek poets Sophocles (495 B.C. -
405 B.C.) who worked during a similar time to; Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle. Aristotle wrote several texts on how stories, plays
etc. of Greek tragedy’s should be constructed. Because his study
of morality – and the development of the virtues allowed him to
realize the important character traits that develop as one comes
to realize of their own existence.
One of the stories that were used to highlight core elements of
Freudian Theory – of how we come to view ourselves as
separate from other objects around us – and therefore as a result
become conscious of our ability to move amongst those objects –
is the Greek Tragedy of King Oedipus.
The myth of Oedipus has been continuously interpreted and re-
told since the first written version appeared in Sophocles’
Oedipus Rex; It is perhaps the “first detective story of Western
literature” Segal, C (1993:12). But the murder mystery is
gradually replaced by a search for Oedipus’ identity. “The action
of the play consists in nothing other than the process of
revealing…, a process that can be likened to the work of
psychoanalysis” (Freud SE 2:295). The question motivating the
play—who am I?—… how did I learn myself… is, in a nutshell,
the question of psychoanalysis. Carel, H (2006) “This way of
telling the story shifts the emphasis from the events themselves
to the psychological process of discovery, as Oedipus gradually
unravels their true significance. This recasts the myth as a story
of a man in search of himself, an enigma whose circular
trajectory leads back to the questioner.” That the story begs the
question to the audience “Who am I?” making them question
their own lives. Carel, H (2006)
Once upon a time there was a child called Oedipus; he heard of
the Delphic Oracle’s Prophecy of him; which was that “one day
you will kill your father and marry your mother” in order to
protect his beloved parents from this harm that he is
prophesized to bring upon them he travels far away from home.
When he arrived at the city of Thebes he is asked a riddle he was
asked by The Sphinx, which is a creature that has the haunches
of a lion, the wings of a great bird, and the face of a woman that
guarded the city – The question asked was asked to all travellers
it is that which is a physical representation of a higher deity -
“Which creature walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in
the afternoon, and three legs in the evening?" those who cannot
answer her riddle are to have some form of doomed fate.
Oedipus answered “Man” and thus had seemingly averted ill
fate – by many, for this he was applauded as clever for solving
the riddle which was a factor in him eventually becoming king.
When Oedipus is asked how he managed to solve the riddle of
the sphinx – with his audience expecting him to attribute it to the
God’s or some divine influence – and ability to interpret these
signs from the Gods; he instead he attributed it to his own
intellect. “I stopped the Sphinx! With no help from the birds the
signs of the God’s, the flight of my intelligence hit the mark”
(Oedipus the King, ll. 445-53) Oedipus believed himself a
rational self-sufficient man; and therefore treats all things he
encounters with this same rational thinking throughout the story
– he solves the problem of the rule of his city as King using
rational means.
When Oedipus became King, despite his best efforts the city
began falling into ruin – there were prophets who were saying
that the city was in ruin because of a curse. “Before this land was
a state – it was sovereign of Laius” he was murdered, “he fell,
and now the God’s command is plain, punish his takers,
whoever they may be” The curse was because a former King
Laius was murdered – and it is foretold that the land would not
thrive again until the murderer is discovered. He was murdered
while travelling abroad to the Delphic, Oedipus complains about
the difficulty of bringing his murderers to justice – but Creon
states “in this land, said the god; “He who seeks will find; he
who sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind”. Sophocles (429
BCE: II 280)
King Oedipus took this rumour seriously and set out to discover
the killer of King Laius; he states “Now my curse on the
murderer. Whoever he is, a lone man unknown in his crime or
one among many, let that man drag out his life in agony, step by
painful step…” Sophocles (429 BCE: II 280)
He begins to honour his word by interviewing various
witnesses; one witness he interviewed was the Blind Prophet
Teiresias. To which he says “You with your precious eyes, you’re
blind to the corruption of your life, to the house you live in, in
those you live with- who are your parents? Do you know?” He
concludes “Revealed at last, brother and father both to the
children he embraces, to his mother son and husband both- he
sowed the loins his father sowed, he spilled his father’s blood.”
Sophocles (429 BCE: 1313)
What the Prophet had to say about the death of King Laius was
disturbing because he claimed that King Oedipus himself was
the killer – which of course seems irrelevant to him becoming
King, because Oedipus became King naturally because of his
great intellect and that the city needed a leader.
Oedipus was concerned by the claims of the man – but typically
had taken Prophets Predictions seriously. From the moment he
is told that its prophesized that he is the killer of King Laius till
the end of the story King Oedipus life seems to fall in a negative
way. He tells his wife how he has been not himself since he
heard the claims of the prophet.
His wife says that he shouldn’t concern himself about the
predictions of prophets – as when she was married to the former
King Laius they constantly had the consultation of prophets and
she cited that they were frequently wrong – she mentions that
once her and the former king were told that their son would end
up murdering Laius, and sleeping with her; in the future so they
had the infant put to death in order to prevent him killing Laius
– however she reckoned that this was a mistake because despite
their efforts King Laius was murdered anyway – presumably by
another man.
Despite his wife’s best attempts to calm Oedipus down – he
instead became more focused on discovering the answer to
various questions he had – so he consulted people from the town
he grew up in about his own childhood. He discovered that he
was adopted as he was abandoned as an infant – and so sought
to seek out his biological parents.
One of the concerning elements in Oedipus’s mind is about an
argument he once had with a man who he passed in the road
while both him and the man on carriages. They argued about
who had right of way, and when it seemed as if Oedipus was
about to have a sword drew on him by the man he quickly
knocked the man off of the carriage, which he fell to the floor
and as a result died.
While Oedipus is making these discoveries into his own pre-
adolescent years his wife suddenly has a moment of insight.
Suddenly everything in her mind clicks into place; that she is
Oedipus’s mother – that Laius was his father; and that Oedipus
is now her husband.
The thought of this knowledge destroys her, and she commits
suicide – Oedipus arrives back from his travels and suddenly
realizes what his wife had discovered – and that he killed his
own father.
We will attempt to explain the story and how it’s a metaphor – at
least to Freud and Aristotle (in the sense of the fatal flaw) of the
development of the self – and the nature of a virtuous man.
Sophocles. Meyer, M. (2005) “Sophocles tells the story from the
point of view of a son looking for his origins, and his discovery
becomes “the tragedy of self-knowledge,” Rudnytsky, P.
(1987:256) What is the main question throughout the story of
‘Oedipus the King’; at least viewed in the eyes of Aristotle’s
interpretation is what are the moral implications for a Man, what
actions does a man take that are right? And how should a man
know what to do.
Later on in History Sigmund Freud (like others) believed our
fate around us, becomes internalised inside of us – as an
unconscious. That we have an internal conflict from our desires
in the world, and the problems that get in our way; but we might
be unaware of the cause of those desires, or the distress we feel
in our lives that blinds us from seeing the truth. Freud believed
the Oedipus complex acted as an important method to illustrate
his central theory. That if we could only accept our internally
distressing feelings – desire of our absolute form – then we
would no longer be unaware of the feelings that control us.
Freud’s theory of development is essentially; how a man comes
to recognize himself, his ego – as he comes to face the world.
Why does just a story really tell us anything about philosophy of
being a man, isn’t it just a story? Aristotle argues not, he states
“Poetry is philosophy… it teaches his explicit laws of the
universal, it makes you wonder that if you were in the same line
of circumstances, would you make the same choices” it’s for this
reason he states that tragedies are told using real characters who
lived in history.
That is to say that Aristotle believes that stories reveal something
very fundamental about the nature of the self; he like Plato &
Socrates don’t believe a man to be his true form of self. That he
lacks unity, he is divided and full of internal conflict; but for the
purposes of good story telling a perfect man or hero isn’t
required, he says “unity of plot does not mean unity of the hero”
what he means to say here is that ‘a unity of plot’ is that the story
is believable – to the extent where you would be able to see
similarities in your own life decisions; that given the same
problems you’d act in a similar manner to the main character in
question, and thus would face the same fate.
In the case of Oedipus many thinkers (CARE: 180) have claimed
it would be impossible that the characters of the story couldn’t
have logically come to the final conclusion. This feeling of ‘on
the verge of consciousness‘ is thought to have been purposely
designed into the story.
If you remember the blind prophet in the story, he said
“Oedipus you despite having eyes, the intelligence to defeat the
riddle of the Sphinx – that you’re blind to the truth that
surrounds you”, this leads us to see that the real tragedy lies in
the success of Oedipus – having the cleverness to solve the
riddle of the Sphinx but yet failure to understand the most basic
of all riddles “Who am I?” and so his ruin.
According to interpretations such as Freud’s; it is Oedipus’s fault
that he was morally in the wrong by his actions, because
unconsciously he knew exactly what he was doing. Those who
recognize the components of the story as unconscious might
believe that because Oedipus failed to recognize his own
character as a ‘whole’ and instead just focusing on a single part
of his identity ‘his cleverness’ shows how he misunderstood
himself, and became the source of his own ruin.
In this case; the story of Oedipus is to make one question his
very nature that defines his choices. Aristotle states “The
structural union of parts in the story should be that, if any one of
them is displaced or removed, the whole story will be disjointed
and disturbed” as covered Aristotle believes that life has a kind
of truth to itself; a way that it plays out, and that this life is
reflected in the characters, as well as in their circumstances.
Let’s begin to explain Freud’s theory of how we come to
recognize external objects in the world – and how they come to
define our character; this goes under various titles such as
‘Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development’, ‘On Narcissism’,
‘Ego’ but the meaning is roughly the same.
We shall show some of Freud’s ideas in a similar order to the
structure of the story; like how versions of Oedipus begins with
a question defining the life of a Man “What walks on four legs in
the sunrise, two legs at noon, and three at sunset?” and the
answer being told to avert death (at least for a while) we shall
also do the same by explaining the chronological order of the
development of the self – according to Freudian theory.
When a baby is in the womb, Freud Believes that it doesn’t want
for anything, it has everything it needs, the external world and
its needs – to carry on existing are equal to; they are connected;
they are the same thing, the baby absolutely exists of itself; it is a
means to its own end.
“He (oneself as a foetus) must get from his existence the
impression that he is omnipotent. For what is omnipotence but
the feeling that one has all that one wans, and that one has
nothing left to wish for. The foetus, however, could maintain this
of itself, for it always has what is necessary for the satisfaction of
its instincts, and so has nothing to wish for; it is without wants
(p.219)... the first wish-impulse of the child, therefore cannot be
any other than to regain this situation Horner, T. (1985: 219-222)
The instant the baby is born, everything changes - suddenly it
requires food, warmth, etc. – from this moment onwards until it
ceases to exist the things it requires aren’t totally within its own
self, they are now external to itself, that it feels this distress of
separation (the subject-object divide) from the very things it
needs to continue its existence – that its existence is now
dependent on things it cannot control.
The baby expresses “I want” in order to get what it needs to
avoid distress – and for a while the baby wouldn’t notice; as
Freud believes that mothers and babies are in harmony in the
first initial months; whereby the mother anticipates her baby’s
needs and serves them so effectively that the baby doesn’t
experience extreme distress.
Freud arrived to the view that the infant's recognition of the
object world is prompted by the rise of unavoidable experiences
of pain (frustration) - the libido drives creating the motivation -
and the child’s need from objects in the world to satisfy those
drives - through the external world becomes an extension of the
self - which can be understood to be 'through the self' in this way
"Freud’s theory of reality - want, thoughts, language, and
judgment pivoted in large part upon this conception of early
psychic life. That our frustrations (wants) highlight the
differentiation between the self and the non-self" Horner, T.
(1985)
Later the baby learns to communicate basic “I want” expressions
to the mother by repeating back her language; that the baby
somehow sees the mother as a reflection or contained within its
own wants or desires, that the mother exists to serve itself – she
is part of its existence. Eventually the “clash between the child's
will and that of the mother leads the child to recognize the limits
of his will, his wishes, his fantasies about himself, and thus the
boundaries of the self are narrowed and set up " Horner, T.
(1985:139)
One of the founders of Educational Psychology Piaget states; "...
that the child begins by confusing his self and the world - that is
to say in this particular case his subjective point of view and the
external data - and only later distinguishes his own personal
point of view from other possible points of view. In fact the child
always begins by regarding his own point of view as absolute
Horner, T. (1985: 126)
Piaget goes onto explain object relations works. He states “if…
the human being possesses a mental life when in the womb,
although only an unconscious one - and it would be foolish to
believe that the mind begins to function only at the moment of
birth” what he is saying is that objects and their separateness
from us, their threat or opportunity to our fate, for our inability
to control them absolutely. This external-ness of fate eventually
delivers us the impression of a self-separate of the external
world.
That we initially believe we are omnipotent and the world only
exists to serve our end, to allow us to further our existence. “One
may say without exaggeration that the self is fashioned from the
atrophied remains of magic omnipotence... this original of the
self its linkage with magic omnipotence, will never be
completely eradicated and can be traced even in the adult.
Reality testing blocks the road of return to the omnipotent origin
of the self (p.139)” Horner, T. (1985: 139)
As the child becomes older (age 4+ according to; object relations
theorists) he has rules and judgements about how to live in the
world, he builds friendships, and engages in activities which
receive reward, as oppose to punishment, or the activity is
rewarding in itself i.e. if he receives gifts from the friend then he
is considered a friend, but if there are no gifts then there is no
friendship.
It’s at this age “the child values friendships (objects) insofar as
they are need-gratifying or invests emotionally in moral rules
only to avoid punishment or to receive praise." Westen, D.
Klepser, J. Ruffins, S. Lifton, et al (1991)
After the child reaches a certain age (6yrs+); these thoughts need
to become internalised to communicate – as prior to this the
child may find it difficult to say anything other than exactly
what his desires are, as he enters this stage of ‘internalisation’ he
begins hiding his thoughts for fear of others (such as parents)
knowing his thoughts, this allows him to plan, scheme, etc. he
uses his sense of omnipotence to take back what was taken from
his “his absolute self” the self he realized when in the womb.
This ‘taking back’ the mother (also known as ‘The Oedipus
Complex’ in Freudian theory) from the child’s responsibilities as
an older child (6yrs – 10yrs) concepts about being a man as
identified from the father. Means that the child will attempt to
destroy to father in order to win back the affections of the
mother – which the child wants to destroy his adult self - himself
and the father, in order to return to his infantile state.
As an infantile state – the infant has a perfect form of narcissism
– it’s the absolute version of it; and it provides content for a
perfect ideal of self; with absolute gratification. It cannot be
prevented, the food in the fridge even if plentiful will decay and
need to be replaced, and there may be requirement to go to work
to earn money to pay for warmth in the household, narcissism
means ‘self-admiration’ and we all are born with the perfect
example of that ‘self-contemplation’ “unlike those kinds of
pleasure that depend on an external object, ‘self-love’ is always
open to us.” Langford, P. (1995: 15)
In the story of King Oedipus; he killed his father in order to
become King of his mother; to control her (and his land)
absolutely with the power of a King. And throughout the entire
time denying his knowledge of this being the case, or his
intention to make this occur – to purposely kill the King in order
to become his absolute self. Freud believed this Narcissism
existed within all of us, and like Oedipus we deny it – but as
long as we deny it we will not have a true understanding of our
subconscious; and therefore as a result we are affected by its fate.
Erich Fromm states “Freud’s essential principle is to look upon
man as an entity, a closed system endowed by nature with
certain physiologically conditioned drives, and to interpret the
development of his character as a reaction to satisfactions and
frustrations of these drives; whereas, in our opinion, the
fundamental approach to human personality is the
understanding of man’s relation to the world, to others, to
nature, and to himself. We believe that man is primarily a social
being and not, as Freud assumes, primarily self-sufficient and
only secondarily in need of others in order to satisfy his
instinctual needs.” Fromm, E. (1942)
According to Fromm; even though the instinctive motivation
inside of us – our libido – our life force, our energy, is a
biological one – it’s highly modifiable. He believes it’s the role of
social psychology to explain how these surrounding shared
social relevant, psychic attitudes, of the individual with
reference to their unconscious development from the family
unit’s interaction with the surrounding social-economic
environment.
What we’ve shown here is how object-subject relations has been
built into two different theories of child development; and that
the philosophy of Aristotle has been taken seriously as a way of
the self-relating to the world in the 20th century. Although we
don’t support the work of Freud to be an accurate portrayal of
the structure of the personality, what we do conclude is that
object relations is an important branch from the philosophy of
knowledge into philosophy of mind – and eventually “the
science of psychology”.
That objective objects are seen as external only because of our
frustration to have them work for our wishes. According to
Piaget it’s not that we desire anything outside of the self, he
continues “We don’t desire other objects. We intrinsically value
them because we need them to satisfy our drives“ Fromm, E.
(1942:34)
For this reason; we internalize illusions of sense, language, point
of view, values of others, etc. in order to consume the objective
world into the subjective so once again we will contain all we
need as necessary to support our own omnipotence – we are
value consumers. We turn objective ideas, into subjective ideas
and mistake these as part of the nature of our soul.
All thoughts are prey to perceptual confuses between objective
and subjective, between the real and the ostensible; it values the
entire content of consciousness on a single plane in which
ostensible realities and the unconscious interventions of the self
are inextricable mixed Horner, T. (1985:34)
The theory of object relations that we’ve been covering shows
that “interpersonal behaviour and cognitive and affective
processes mediate the way we relate to others”. That we are
some version of Freud’s Narcissist self or Piaget’s Egocentric
self. That we once had a belief that we could make the world
around us exactly how we saw fit, and choose our own destiny.
Piaget comments we as children “ignore the existence of the
self's impact on perceptions and thought, disregards the
relativity of one's own perspective, and thus takes the subject's
point of view as immediately real and absolute". Achtenberg, D.
(2002:38)
Brentano believes that this ‘thinking of other things’ as related to
us – this ego centric view of the world – is the mark of all mental
states. That even when a scientist proposes something such as
E=MC2 they are only detaching themselves from the truth, for
the purpose of alluding to knowledge, but this is just a higher
format of the I which would have been considered in an earlier
version of the statement.
That E=MC2 only makes sense, in terms of that a person was
exhibiting his intentionality when they issued it as a truth
‘statement’.
For example; when we consider the actions of others, we either
consider how it would interfere with our life plans, our ability to
be self-conscious and deem their action a problem or ethically
immoral, or we relate ourselves ‘as if’ we were the person
making the action and we believe “yes, I’d like the opportunity
to do that action, therefore I will judge their act to be a morally
good or virtuous act”.
When we detach ourselves from the state of affairs between
other persons or objects – this is called “higher order
intentionality” where we build rules about ‘the way things are’
between the network of objects we are referring to, ignoring that
we are making a statement related to the probabilities of
potential opportunities and risks occurring associated with that
state of affairs in respect to the self.
“If the state of affairs between a group of objects exists in this
way, then what does that mean for me? How can it benefit me?
How can I avoid the risks associated with it?” It seems Brentano,
Noam Chomsky, Freud and John Stuart Mill is stated that we
believe we make this statement logically whenever we talk or
think about the external world. That whenever we have any
mental state – we are intending of objects - that whatever
judgment is made in the mental mind, is an affirmation, a denial,
a love, a hatred, a desire etc. of how the object affects the
person’s ability to continue to survive – in their truest sense –
their actualization.
If we use Aristotelian logic, then it follows that – because all
things exist outside ourselves, but can only be understood to
exist through the self – then we assume the same capacity that
we have, that made us aware of the nature of the object – must
also be contained within the object. Without our ability to reason
(our soul) being entwined with the object the object ceases to
exist. The object can only exist necessarily if it has the essence of
being.
Alternatively you could claim that we interpret the world
through the self, and there we bias it through our interpretation
– however this statement would assume the bias (ones
reasoning), and the object can exist separately, this of course is
logically impossible.
Intentionality is the question of whether all forms of
consciousness are conscious of something – the intent to do
something with some object or attribute of that object.
This is to say that every mental state has a desire or purpose that
fuels it, which is either caused as a result of pursuing some self-
focused goal, or the frustration that arises from not engaging in
self-activity that arises from the self. That all sensations we have,
for example a pain, a headache, anxiety, laughter, emotions –
like depression, all have a purpose, according to the philosophy
of intentionality.
You may recognize this as the unconscious, as Freud, and other
early psychology writers labelled this feeling, this energy that
comes and goes throughout our lifetime, is sometimes awake
and realized, and at other times is dormant – and we are lifeless,
can’t love and cannot engage in meaningful thought and
activity. Various philosophers have attempted to explain why
our energy for life; our vitality comes and goes, we will cover
some of their views later on in this section, followed by a
proposed solution.
Menger like Aristotle believed that man has no innate ideas; that
his ability to reason, to make action was his sole source of power
over nature; his only means of survival. Menger wrote about
determinism, mentioning free will could be understood to be
affected by economic forces; but regardless of this influence of
the outside world on the nature of a man’s thought; the
primarily goal of man is to serve his own interest – to continue
his own interest in its fullest unique sense. Edward Wayne
Younkins (2005:23)
We started this chapter with the idea that a Man’s happiness
comes from his goal pursuits. John Stuart Mill said that “In order
for a man to be happy, he must place upon himself some kind of
goal, and then strive towards it”.
However these goals must be meaningful pursuits, that are the
by-product of your unique sense of self (Phenomenology) we all
have unique experiences; and through reason these create our
consciousness; and the pursuits that we need to self-actualize;
the life goals that will make us happy. From this we have our
sense of self over time, and we consider this selection of habits,
attitudes, and traits to be the personality.
Our ability to reason comes first; our senses come second and
the way we use what we learn should aim to reinforce our ego
by increasing our impact; we naturally want to have an identity
that fits, but then keep challenging it and taking it further
forming new connections in our brain between sets of neurons.
We take a piece of amazing music, we play it too often until we
no longer can hear it, then we remix it and it becomes
stimulating again.
This process of deconstructing reality for the purposes of
stimulation cannot be for its own sake; you can have as much
coffee, go to as many cinema films, or dinner dates as you like,
you can work on project after project and claim your career is
progressing and that, that is a goal – but where is the underlying
philosophy?
Ideas are supposed to smash into one another, but in a
meaningful way. You can’t just connect all ideas all over the
place, the same way that someone might take drugs and
experience Euphoria or if a comedian makes a joke about a
current affair - what’s it to you?
To give an example of the silly things people do while on drugs
such as hallucinogens; to recall an example of someone I know;
who takes a drug and suddenly can conceive of the literally
works of many; and how they were all produced on paper – then
thinks it artistic or clever to shred a sheet of paper – because the
activity seems interesting and stimulating. The problem is that
the activity doesn’t really mean anything – sure it was exciting,
but you’ve pursued excitement and creativity at the expense of
your good reason.
You’ve allowed ideas to smash into each other – which your true
nature wouldn’t usually combine. This alters the way you view
the ideas permanently, and can cause one to feel confused by the
own ideas, and perhaps sense of self – because they don’t really
fit or are easy to interpret by the self.
Ayn Rand continues the point, that the subconscious and the
conscious should be a reflection of the goals of the self and the
underlying philosophy which they used to select those goals.
She states that "Your subconscious is like a computer –
programmed by your conscious mind; if you default, if you
don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is
programmed by chance” Rand (1984:3)
She says that if your subconscious is programmed by chance
then this will be reflected in your ideas; you will not sure which
idea to choose one way or another. She states that if you have
reason and logic from which you decide your beliefs, your ideas.
Then you understand the nature of your ideas and your
emotions; and through this you have confidence in your being.
She states that if a man doesn’t understand the background to
his ideas, then he is run by his emotions. He doesn’t know
whether his emotions reflect reality, where they come from,
whether they are right or wrong – whether they promote his
happiness, try to help him achieve his goals, or whether they try
and force him in the direction of evil. She states “he is blind to
the world around him and to his own inner world”
Some philosophers, such as Hegel, and theologians, have seen
man’s history as a story of separation from himself. That the true
nature of man rests in his original form – perhaps God – or a
platonic form. And Man must bring himself home back to his
original self, using the only way he can truly know how -
through asserting his own right to exist on his own terms.
Bolden, L. Bowman, M. Kaufman, S. Lindemann, D. (2003)

I object to objects!
Is the personality separate from the soul? If you have a true
platonic nature – is your personality a mimic of it, or is it a
separate object. This has been the discussion of such authors as
Karl Popper.
Karl Popper and others such as Karl Marx, came to the
conclusion that the nature of a man, is different to the nature of
his core self – the self that comes into existence when we assert
the phrase “I think therefore I am” – the source of our true
platonic form.
That they hypothesize that the personality itself – our character
is an object external to ourselves, the same way that objects are
external from ourselves.
That’s assuming that our personality or character is separate
from the soul – to achieve this we need to discuss whether a
character and its soul that it’s from can become separated.
We are here referring to other forces other than the soul (our
ability to reason), that interfere and make up our features;
attitudes, thoughts, behaviours, feelings.
Thinkers such as Hegel; are speaking of an Alienation of man –
where Man has become separated from himself – thinkers such
as Erich Fromm suppose that the early work on the
‘unconscious’ as defined by Freudian and Post-Freudian
thinkers – is that the unconscious forces are the character – the
object – that is an internalisation of external conflict in object
relations.
In Freud’s earliest theory of the unconscious. (Freud, S. 1905)
Drive Theory – unconscious energy becomes attached to objects
– other people – in particular parental influences whilst one is an
infant. That, in the case of the parental influences we use our
parents as information about the character of our-self – we
internalize their features; as we treat ourselves as a version of
them or our parents as a version of ourselves.
These mental representations of objects, and other people – come
to inform our judgement about new information we encounter;
they become the filter through which we see the world. In
Freudian and post Freudian literature they are labelled different
names, such as; "Internal objects", "illusionary others,"
"introjects," "personifications," and the constituents of a
"representational world."
According to psychodynamic (Freudian) thinkers; these mental
representations of others serve as a method to anticipate the
future, as a means of self-preservation; so we learn about likely
events, and we from this we have a sense of what is to be
expected from people who we meet in the real world.
These mental images of what to expect; and how they influence
the self, come to offer a personal experience of what type of
character one is, who are his persecutors who are out to destroy
him, and what objects are sources of desire or resourcefulness.
In other words we have an internal map of relationships with
people that had an important impact on our lives, primarily our
attachment figures as an infant – our parents. And these
relationships shape our interpretation of the relationships we
form with others later in life.
The judgements about us, the conflicts, the focus of the
relationship becomes “‘internalized’ and so come to shape
subsequent attitudes, reactions, and perceptions and so on.”
Greenberg, J. Mitchell, S. (1983:11)
Freud believed that the primarily motivation of a man’s life is to
procreate – i.e. sexual stimulation. And this was the force that
encourages our desire to continue existence; that is the primarily
source of all human wants, needs and desires. This idea of the
primarily source of energy being thought of as a sexual
unconscious – became the central focus for critics of the Freudian
theory.
One of these critics was Erich Fromm, a philosopher throughout
the 20th century. Although he shared the believe that the
personality-character of a self was an object se00parate to the self
– he disagreed that it – the unconscious – was caused by deep
routed sexual libido (desires) and their interaction with the
surrounding environment – in particular the parental-infant
relationship was inaccurate.
Erich Fromm was undoubtedly a genius like everyone we’ve
mentioned so far in the text. He instead believed that character is
not formed by “the phases of libidinal development but is a
psychic (interjected energy) entity that is created by the various
ways in which man relates to the world.” That we should
understand this internalized personality as a internalisation of its
relation to the socio-economic situation. Fromm, E. (1982)
We could take this to mean that the abundance of a certain
influence will cause one person to be a certain way. That our
wants, desires etc. are a kind of volition sense – a desire to exert
power over our “external sphere” to produce something that we
are proud of that represents our self onto the external world
using the resources available to us.
This thinking that our attempts to control the external
environment & its parts within our personality had already been
discussed; in moral philosophy by several philosophers living in
the century prior; in order to explain a philosophical account of
how we choose; requires we look at: John Stuart Mill and his
work on individuality, the work of his father James Mill on
Utility theory, Karl Marx social political economic systems,
Charles Darwin and his economics of evolution style thinking,
and Adam Smith for his work on the advantages gained from
building relationships with others.
James Mill explains how motivation to make a decision works
according to his utilitarianism – he states “The source of
happiness is to affirm oneself” to have some true sense of
existence. To make ones “subjective sense of individuality
objectified” to have your “specific character turned into some
kind of works available for consumption” This is the way to
manifest your individuality into the external world.
That it is Man’s essential nature [and source of unconscious
energy] to “have their sense of self be objective witnessed,
visible, to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt…
When I look at the object I would have the individual pleasure of
knowing that I not only objectively exist in my own mind.
“(James Mill, is John Stuart Mills Father) Blunden, A. Baggins, B.
Ryan, S. Walters, D. Batur, Sertan. Nehru, A. Bismo, M. (1999-
2008)
When another person displaying enjoyment or use of my
product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being
conscious and of having satisfied a human need by my work,
that by objectifying my own essential nature, I have thus created
an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential
nature. Blunden, A. Baggins, B. Ryan, S. Walters, D. Batur,
Sertan. Nehru, A. Bismo, M. (1999-2008: James Mill)
Erich Fromm states; "When a man is born, the stage is set for
him. He has to eat and drink, and therefore he has to work; and
this means he has to work under the particular conditions and in
the ways that are determined for him by the kind of society he is
born. Both factors, his need to live and the social system, in
principle are unalterable by him as an individual, and they are
the factors which determine the traits of his personality; his
thoughts etc." Erich Fromm (2001:14)
According to the philosophy of Kant, A man must always be an
end to himself and never a means to an end. He states “Nature
has willed that man should, by himself, produce everything that
goes beyond the mechanical ordering of his animal existence,
and that he should partake of no other happiness or perfection
than that which he himself, independently of instinct, has
created by his own reason.” Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
According to Erich Fromm – every man has to make tough
decisions – whereby they sacrifice one goal of the self in order to
seek another new kind of pleasure. He believes that it is the
nature of all men that - because they interpret external objects
through the self – then it logically follows that we try to treat
others as a means to our own ends. He states “Every man tries to
establish his power over others in order to satisfy his own
egotistic need” – as we are about to see it is for this reason that
Marx sees it necessary to protect the individual man from the
government or the industrialists, at risk that he will be exploited
for their whim at the expense of his own masculinity.
Erich Fromm believes that because our lack of understanding of
the true nature of another – and the impossibility of doing so –
we instead - try to alienate others from their own self of sense
(their end) by attempting to encourage them to commit to the
duty of producing our own end. We subvert others from their
sense of being; because we want them to serve us.
Before the industrial revolution this perhaps would have been
impossible – if you were a farmer who all you did for your entire
life was produce enough food for you and your family; then
other than the intellectual subservience that may occur internally
within the household – speaking aside from that, then the farmer
or the household wouldn’t be a slave to any other man other
than themselves and each other.
If the household happened to produce more than required for
the household, they could take this excess supply to the market
and it would be bought by a middle man, who would sell it to
where it was in demand because of limited supply – because
perhaps another household happened to produce too little of the
stock, and therefore would be unable to feed themselves.
In the years where the farmer produces too much, he would
make enough barter to be able to afford to buy stock during the
years where he failed to produce enough. This all sounds very
well and good; it sounds like some utopian paradise – but it’s
forgetting a few forces. Its forgetting that the value of the
currency that the man has kept over time loses its worth; known
as inflation, and its forgetting that the middle man has taken a
percentage revenue – so in the years when the farmer buys food
– he won’t be able to buy as much as he gave away – which one
way or another is likely to leave a gap – a period where the
farmer didn’t have enough food for his household and therefore
consequently will starve.
The socio-political-economic system of external society attempts
to fix this problem by using the force of division of labour. We
split tasks between one another, where one person specialises in
one task, and another in another task, that make up individual
parts of the end product; by doing this our output increases
dramatically.
Philosophy and perhaps the founder of economics Adam Smith
explains the ‘Division of Labour’ - he analysed a Pin factory and
noted that by using 10 men who each specialized in making a
particular part of the pin led to a 240 or 4800 fold increase in the
amount of pin production the factory was capable of than if the
men each created a pin each “Each person, therefore, making a
tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as
making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day.
But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and
without any of them having been educated to this peculiar
business, they certainly could not each of them have made
twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the
two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight
hundredth part of what they are at present capable of
performing, in consequence of a proper division and
combination of their different operations.” Adam Smith (1776)
The obvious problem with this is; is that, the man’s goal initially
was to provide him the resources to continue his existence; to
increase his wealth of knowledge – his understanding of himself
– the nature of the forms – understand virtue, produce himself
into the world through – self defined acts – to add external
objectivity his nature.
But to solve the issue of lack of production we are giving up our
ability to produce works that reflect our nature – instead to
produce the smallest part of a pin, from which we don’t intend
to use to continue our existence.
Like in the example of the farmer - the gap created by the market
– the inflation – the cut taken by the middle man – leaves a too
little supply for the farmer to be able to feed himself and his
family, although division of labour seems like a solution to this
problem it isn’t because the man was merely interested in
choosing his acts, in actualizing his existence.
Erich Fromm; believes that the monetary system is the ultimate
way to detach a man to produce excess production that isn’t for
his own end – thereby allowing value for others. And he believes
as a result of the monetary system we become alienated from our
true sense of self – the ends we should be pursuing and instead
are “subservient to inhuman, depraved, unnatural, and
imaginary” goals and appetites.
As cities began to grow from Entrepreneurs taking over; and
producing cotton and so on; Karl Marx began writing about how
this tyranny was immoral – how the workers in the factories
were being exploited.
From Marx’s work on the Alienation of the Self – we can
understand some things about what he believed about morality,
and the nature of psychology – how a Man is supposed to live;
and how a Man becomes detached from his purpose; the term he
created for this was “Alienation”. And he wrote about it as he
lived during the industrial revolution in England, which often
meant the rich got richer and average worker was reduced
almost to slave status.
Marx’s saw that the lives of men who worked in the factories, in
the cities that although they were paid better than the farmers in
the countryside – their quality of life was much worse; and that
their ability to think for themselves was reduced.
The factories owners disagreed – they believe that if these men –
these workers weren’t so lazy they would get up and be
entrepreneurs like the factory owner. But Marx believed that
one’s surroundings makes up the personality – that these men
had their thoughts reduced by the long hours – the poor pay –
the repetitive tasks – they became so far detached from their own
end – making profit for someone else’s that they became unable
to proceed to innovate an original idea from which they could be
in demand for and thus profit like an entrepreneur.
That the environment around the man, creates the soul of the
man. Karl Marx recognized that the industrialists were
exploiting their workforce, paying them very little, offering them
poor working conditions and lifestyle opportunity, reducing the
workforce’s capacity for control of their own destiny – forcing a
monopoly over their lifestyle choices.
Marx’s believed that this came from a belief that industrialists
believed that the value of “a commodity is determined by the
quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the
labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because
more time would be required in its production.” Marx, C. (1863-
1878) and therefore the more time spent on the product
production was the only important factor – not the thoughts,
personality or soul of the worker – just the amount of hours that
he could use his hands to perform basic routines – without
ceasing to exist.
Unlike Fordism, a philosophy about human freedom developed
by the industrialist Henry Ford, which originated from a
philosophy of man called Taylorism developed by Frederick
Taylor whose theories attempted to constrict Man’s freedom by
incentivising man through the offering of high wages. It should
be noted today that ‘Scientific Management’ his theory that the
micromanagement of every aspect of the workers activity will
increase the productivity capacity of each worker is still treated
as a serious approach to running an organisation by many
organisational psychologists.
In response to such a dire view as to call ‘Men lazy’ – the
accusation made by Taylor, Ford, and others, Erich Fromm
replied “Many thinkers believe that man is lazy. It is wrote in the
Jewish faith that when “Moses asked Pharaoh to let the Jewish
people go so that they might “Serve God in the desert”, his
answer was; “you are lazy, nothing but lazy.” To Pharaoh slave
labour meant doing things; worshipping God was laziness. The
same judgement of ‘people are lazy’ was adopted by all those
who wanted to profit from activity of others and had no use for
productiveness, which they could not exploit.” Fromm, E. (1990)
Therefore the factory towns erupted with this goal in mind – to
increase output, building tiny houses around the factories or
inside of them; and creating restrictions that forced the worker to
work as long hours as physically possible as regularly as
possible – with his source of motivation being – to continue
being alive – not to run out of money and thus food; with no
regard to the unique nature of the soul of the man.
These towns; whether they realize it or not developed to reduce
peoples capacity for thought – to express their own unique
attributes – and perform them for his own means; to exist only
for himself. Marx recognized that it was society’s role to prevent
this from happening – from a few industrialists profiteering and
exploiting the masses to produce excess supply for no good
reason.
Marx disagreed with the idea that men are lazy; he believed that
men might be lazy when producing for another man’s end. But
not the end for himself, he states “Man produces even when he
is free from physical need…He duplicates himself not only, as in
consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and
therefore he contemplates himself in a world that he has
created” Fromm, E. (1990:76). He goes on to argue that
estranging man from this free productivity essentially alienates
him from his true form.”
He states “A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside
us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some
sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance,
they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no
difference.” Marx, C. (1863-1878). he continues “The utility of a
thing makes it a use value.(4*) But this utility is not a thing of
air.” That “This property of a commodity is independent of the
amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.”
That “Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a
quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of
one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,”
Because Marx recognized that the external environment created
a man’s sense of self – and Marx believed the moral thing to do
was to allow humans to maximize their own happiness he thus
dedicated his life’s work to creating a political-economic system
that he believed would allow ‘freedom of thought’ for all,
treating everyone in existence equally in order to encourage
them to innovate, to produce works of art, to define the world
around them. The system he proposed for this was communism;
as Communism he writes "is the genuine resolution of the
antagonism between man and nature and between man and
man; it is the true resolution of the conflict between existence
and essence, objectification and self-affirmation, freedom and
necessity, individual and species. Marx, K. Locke, J. Simon, L.
Winkler, K. (1994)
What is a free man? How can we take hold of our own existence
and choose life goals that better ourselves to recognize when we
are exploiting ourselves or letting others exploit us. It seems
from our literature review that it’s far too easy to let objects
outside of us – end up becoming an end in themselves rather
than working for the ultimate end – your own - “The stuff you
own ends up owning you” – Palahniuk, C.Uhls, J. (1999)
The philosopher Hegel – holds that true freedom – “is the
capacity to abstract from all particular determinations, desires
and interests. This capacity is what makes someone a person “a
self-consciousness of itself as a perfectly abstract self” Allen W.
Wood (1990)
Karl Marx makes a form of philosophical joke, describing people
as “Homo Faber” what he means is that people need to fabricate
– to commit volition – self guided acts – to use the objects of the
world to better themselves in their own unique way – to produce
innovations, works of art, ideas and so on that are unique to the
self.
"There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his
life by the unfolding of his powers." (Erich Fromm: Man for
himself)This is labelling theory; which is a sociological and
psychological branch of social construct theory – the philosophy
of constructivism. Social Constructivism is simply that we
generate beliefs, feelings, thoughts, through our learning
activities while interacting with others. “To a large extent, a
person's behavior is a result of individual wants (values) and
considerations of what is true about the world or oneself (beliefs)
Scheibe, K. (1970)
On this ‘unfolding of one’s powers – is freedom’ Hegel states “a
person must give its freedom an external sphere in order to exist
as Idea” (PR 41). “Idea for Hegel, refers to a rational concept
when it expresses or embodies itself in something real….. a
spiritual being such as ourselves only feels the force of our own
existance when it actualizes itself appropriately in the objective
world.
I “exist as Idea” when my personality, my capacity to make
abstract choices (choices external to the self) is given adequate
scope to actualize itself, and this happens (according to Hegel)
when I have sufficient “external sphere” subject to my arbitrary
choice.” Allen W. Wood (1990:77)
Fichte explains this further “The self defines itself through its
own activity; but it is nevertheless limited or finite,
distinguishable from other objects. This means that the self’s
activity must be limited by a notself, an objective world different
from and opposed to the self. From this Fichte infers that we can
only be aware of activities (choices) that are practical or
achievable. That choices, ideas, others are volitions; they are
defined by your ability to interact with them – our thoughts are
concerned with altering an outside world.
He continues to explain time, and space around us in terms of
object relations. That since our self awareness is implicit of a
volition over an external object. The process of transformation of
the relation between the self and the object; the changes during
the interaction, create the concept of time.
Innovate for Free
"Most men, live under the illusion that they follow their own
ideas and inclinations, that they are individualists, that they
have arrived at their opinions as the result of their own thinking
- and that it just happens that their ideas are the same as those of
the majority. The consensus serves as a proof for the correctness
of their ideas."
Being as they have little that differentiates them, they reduce
themselves to being differentiate based on the initials printed on
their T-Shirt. Or by their list of favourite movie titles mentioned
on their social media presence ‘about me’ section Fromm, E
(1956:9)
You want me to leave you alone, you say? "My life is good
enough so who cares", “Everyone struggles”, “no one’s perfect”.
If you believe in the laws of logic and contradiction in their
platonic form you have to accept, that the slightest contradiction
is an absolute one. The only meaning to life, is the meaning to
man makes for himself by exploring his, and unfolding his
powers.
“Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I
don't want you to protest. I wouldn't know what to tell you to
protest about... All I know is that first you've got to get mad.
You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life
has VALUE!' - Network (1976)
Capitalists claim that the free market is about people freely
competing for their own rights and values. Well, I wonder, if
industrialists work employees in a set routined standardized
fashion; where is the free market innovation and
competitiveness amongst them. The free market, isn't free
enough, it’s time to get mad for your uniqueness.
You can’t claim to be a ‘free market economy’ when you have
capitalism amongst the ‘players’ but socialism in the office place.
The free market isn’t free if it doesn’t allow free competition
amongst everyone. This view of humanity as lazy and worthless
just isn't true. I'm made to believe I’m worthless, that I have to
do for someone else, because I couldn't do anything of worth
myself.
The perfect economic relation would be "the characteristic of the
individual in the capitalist society. (where) each person works
for himself, individualistically, at his own risk and not primarily
in co-operation with others. But he is not a Robinson Crusoe; he
needs others, as customers, as employees or as employers. He
must buy and sell, give and task. The market whether it is the
commodity or the labour market, regulates these relations. Thus
the individual primarily alone and self sufficient, enters into
economic relations with others as a means to one end; to sell and
to buy. Fromm, E. (1942, 8)
The Hero Returns
“Only to the extent that man exposes himself over and over
again to annihilation, can that which is indestructible arise
within him”. -- Karlfried Graf von Durckheim
Consciousness as self-activity
“Man’s real needs are an expression of his universality, the
nature of the species which is reborn in each individual. They
are essential needs which lead to relationships with both the
human and the natural world, in a reciprocal dialectic between
the naturalness of man and the humanization of nature” Biancoli
(1989)
“It is understood that the subject as an individual is born with an
allotment of needs. But let me repeat once more, needs as an
internal force may be realized only in activity. “Leontev, A.
(1978)
That is to say that psychic energy is related to what ideas are in
demand, the demand in the world; creates an internal force
within the self.
It sounds silly right? But suppose the morality of a human who
hasn’t accepted a morality. Or the decision of a person or hasn’t
chosen a decision; if someone has no underlying philosophy –
they are quickly labelled with opinions, values, beliefs, and
make decisions that aren’t their own. When their peers make
judgements “your smart”, “Your dumb”, “Your too selfish”,
“You’re a nice person” we accept that we have that version of
our self within us, and automatically it becomes the dominant
feature of our nature; the label comes to define us – because such
a man lacks definition within himself.
Not to be selfish “implies not to do what one wishes, to give up
one's own wishes for the sake of those in authority; i.e., the
parents, and later the authorities of society. „Don't be selfish”
Fromm, E. (1939b)
“Eyes to see with ears to hear with, a brain to reason and
perceive with, a heart to feel with, organs and their use, faculties
and functions this is the Marxist concept of human nature,
„dynamic and full of energy“ The concreteness of human nature
lies in its position as the need for self-affirmation, self-
production, in the world. In the Manuscripts work is called
“self-activity“ insofar as human beings and nature are in a
reciprocal relationship in which the naturalness of man shows its
worth as an expression of active need which interacts with
nature and humanizes it. However, the psychologist in Marx
sees the “ambiguous character of needs“ Needs can be artificial
even if they are not perceived as such” Fromm, E.Biancoli, R.
(1989)
Free Will, Psychology & NeuroScience
For thousands of years philosophers have looked at human act,
and questioned what drives and motivates people to commit one
activity over another and how society as a whole can decide
what actions are most valuable.
What is free will? According to the Encyclopedia of Columbia -
free will is a philosophic concern; that assumes individuals,
regardless of forces external to them, is still able and does choose
at least some of his actions.
Do we possess free will, do we have an ability to choose our
actions? In order to discover a considered answer as to whether
we possess free will provides us taking into account the
processes that exercise that will. Therefore we should look at the
the mechanisms within the brain that participate in decision
making.
Free will is about our ability to make choices, and is an essential
question if we are going to uncover whether its really possible to
make others do what we want them to do through persuasion; or
whether thats just a pipe dream.
To reject Free Will is refered to as psychological determinism, it
assumes that all behaviour, thoughts, etc were always envitiable
to happen. It sounds like a outlandishly bold claim, and theres
plenty of reasons we might want to argue against it.
For example; if someone was always going to steal a car, or rob a
bank, or murder someone then is it really fair to put them in
prison as a result of their crime, as it isn’t really their crime nor
their fault?
A visit to one of our nation’s jails or prisons will show rows of
humans kept behind bars, many of whom have returned to
prison on a second or third offense, committed despite their first-
hand knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
As a society we justify the imprisonment of such individuals by
our belief that one can avoid incarceration: that someone
sentenced to spend years in prison got there only through his or
her own choices. That is, we possess a freedom of will, and it is
misuse of that freedom that justifies restrictions on it. Burns,
K.Bechara, A. (2007)
Answers to such questions have dramatic consequences for our
ethical and legal systems. I feel responsible for my voluntary
acts and am likely to be held responsible for them by the courts.
But, if my conscious self is not responsible for my acts and if the
act is determined by preconscious processing, can‘t I plead, in
mitigation, that I could not have chosen to do otherwise as the
acts were controlled by my non-conscious brain? Max Velmans
(2008)
Jeffrey Rosen wrote in The New York Times Magazine, “Since all
behavior is caused by our brains, wouldn’t this mean all
behavior could potentially be excused? … The death of free will,
or its exposure as a convenient illusion, some worry, could
wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility.”
Eddy, N. (2011)
The question of free will goes strikes the core foundation of our
views about human nature and how we relate to the universe
and to natural laws. Are we completely prearranged by the
determistic nature of physical laws?
Are we just “essentially sophisticated automatons, with our
conscious feelings and intentions tacked on as a
phenomenological accident? Or is it that we really do have some
independence in making choices and actions, not completely
determined by the known physical laws?”.
When consciously reading this sentence for example you become
aware of the printed text on the page, accompanied, perhaps, by
inner speech (phonemic imagery) and a feeling of understanding
(or not). But you have no introspective access to the processes
that enable you to read. Nor does one have introspective access
to the details of most other forms of cognitive functioning, for
example to the detailed operations that enable conscious
learning, remembering, engaging in conversations with others
and so on. Max Velmans (2008)
That although we might be aware of many things; there are
things that go on inside our own brains that we are not always
quite aware of and perhaps these cause behaviours, attitudes etc.
that we are not sure we necessarily chose?
We could say that in your environment, you often have a limited
set of choices provided; for example in a supermarket you might
have only three brands of beans on sale. And therefore making
your decision about which brand of beans you buy isn’t your
choice because you can’t buy from any of the other 1000’s of
bean selling competitors that exist.
However, this is perhaps a silly route of enquiry to show that we
don’t have quite as much control over life as we would like, but
the commonplace view of free will actually takes account of the
fact that we cannot control everything in our surroundings, most
philosophers, and it seems general public believe that we can
only control the things we know about, and have access to;
leaving free will to be something conceptual, the ability to recall
information we know about, and be able to act within the best of
our abilities, to be able to choose to think about which one of our
long-ago memories we want to choose to recall, or to be able to
decide what would be an interesting meal choice for this
evening.
If we are ever asked what we are thinking, we can normally
answer. We often seem to believe that we have an understanding
about what is going on in our own minds, that we make
consistent rational decisions and one thought leads to another in
an orderly way.
But that is not really the way the mind works… most of our
impressions actually come from your experience of
consciousness without understanding any of the reasoning on
how they emerged. Kahneman, D. (2011) I also want to
recommend this news article for addition reading. Burkeman, O.
(2011)
A great deal of my thoughts and ideas, not only inspired from
my time studying; but inspired by this new trend in books to
explain every decision people make as an economic one i.e. that
promotes utility. Daniel Kahneman I believe has been one of the
most important researchers into psychology of our time. I know
other hypnotists have their scientist gurus; but this one is mine.
He lives in an airy penthouse on the 14th floor of an apartment
block in downtown Manhattan, not far from the Eighth Street
subway station. But never mind that for a moment. Instead,
without thinking too hard about it, try answering the following
question: roughly what percentage of the member states of the
United Nations are in Africa? (I'll wait.)
Your answer to the above question; might seem irrelevant to this
essay into conversational hypnosis; however its not; If I told you
Daniel Kahneman is 77 years old, your answer would have been
significantly higher as to how many member states from the
United Nations are in Africa. Because I told you about the eighth
subway street, and the 14th apartment block; your answer was
much lower than the number of UN members there are in Africa.
Kahneman, states that, “Words and other stimuli activate
relevant mental processes. Once 'switched on', this cognitive
machinery remains accessible for a while, influencing
subsequent thoughts and actions. When priming affects the
estimation of number values, psychologists call it anchoring.”
William Poundstone (2011:94)
In one of many studies testing the theory that perhaps all of our
decisions are pre-determined – that there is brain activity that
determines the choice we make; before we make a choice; The
scientist Smith, K (2011) and his research team at the Bernstein
Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, involved
putting people into a brain scanner (FRMI) in which a display
screen flashed a succession of random letters1. He told them to
press a button with either their right or left index fingers
whenever they felt the urge, and to remember the letter that was
showing on the screen when they made the decision. The
experiment used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
to reveal brain activity in real time as the volunteers chose to use
their right or left hands. The results were quite a surprise.
"The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real',"
says Haynes. "We came up with more sanity checks than I've
ever seen in any other study before."
The conscious decision to push the button was made about a
second before the actual act, but the team discovered that a
pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as
many as seven seconds. Long before the subjects were even
aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already
decided. Smith, K (2011)
However, it was found in these type of studies that conscious-
will could affect the outcome of the volitional process even
though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral
processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process so that
no act occurs.
The existence of this veto process seems evidential. In the study,
the subjects at times reported that a conscious wish or urge to act
appeared but they supressed or vetoed that and thus failed to lift
a handle.
All of us, not just experimental subjects have experienced our
vetoing a spontaneous urge to perform some act. This often
occurs when the urge to act involves some socially unacceptable
consequence, like an urge to shout some obscenity at a boss or to
stop yourself urinating in public.
Another hypothetical function for the conscious will could be to
serve as a ‘trigger’ that is required to enable the volitional
process to proceed to final action. However there is no evidence
for this, as there is only evidence to veto a given thought-
process, but no evidence to support that the process once
initiated in the unconscious brain? (wherever that begins) needs
to be triggered.
The way I can imagine this is a kind of water-pistol that is being
filled up with water, this particular water pistol has a
dysfunctional trigger, that when the pressure of the water
residing in the barrel of the water pistol is great enough water
will begin dripping out of the end of the gun, however, one can
always push this faulty trigger up into the gun to prevent the
water leaking out.
Perhaps this represents some age old battle between personality
dualisms, Freuds ideas of there being a ‘Superego’ that controls
the impulses that are created by the ‘Id’. Freud saw that the
unconscious had desires and wants, primarily associated with
food and sex, and it was the job of the rule-judgement based
logic of the super-ego closely associated with ‘strong opinions’,
laws, moral-code and the like to prevent the person just doing
what their natural bodily instinct was.
Freudian theory, can be explained through a simple illustration;
for example; we might be hungry, but we can delay and plan
what we would like to eat because of our ego which allows us
the time to weigh up “What would be right” from our superego,
which might depending on the person say that a healthy meal
would be good, but then the id simply complaining that its
hungry and needing satisfaction.
The idea of there been two parts to the psyche (consciousness)
goes back a long time in philosophy, for example Plato
commonly distinguished the “animal” and “rational” parts of
our nature, with the rational part being particularly complex. He
believed that our rational nature comes from our ability to judge
what is a ‘good’ activity, what ‘goal’ is worth pursuing and
seeking this goal despite considerable unpleasantness. For
example early on this evening I was particularly hungry, I could
have easily cooked something from the freezer, but instead I
decided to walk across town and go to a restaurant that I like. I
had to temporarily delay my desire to eat, in order to achieve a
value that I deemed ‘worthwhile’.
Like proclaimed by Freud, and other philosophers, it’s now
widely accepted in child cognitive development that children are
poor at planning, and reflecting; “That their behaviour is more
dominated by the impulsive system—children tend to behave in
a manner that they do what they feel like doing right now,
without much thought about the future. However, through
learning they learn to constrain many desires and behaviours
that conflict with social rules, and that lead to negative
consequences. This is the first sign of the development of
willpower, and an example of how the reflective system gains
control over the impulsive system. Burns, K.Bechara, A.
(2007:267)
In order to understand this ability to choose according to long-
term outcomes, and resist immediate desires; requires that
individuals can recall and trigger memories, imaginings, of
‘other states’ than their current impulses. For example, if I’m
hungry I can imagine all of the good meals I’ve had and then
make a decision based on that, rather than just immediate eating
what is close by, it’s triggering of these somatic states by the
reflective/planning system which signal how valuable long-term
outcomes are over immediate concerns.
In order to understand this ‘impulsive’ part of the human
psyche, we might first research what the word impulsive means;
‘thefreedictionary.com’ states that the word ‘impulsive’ refers to
actions based on sudden desires, whims, or inclinations rather
than careful planning or thought. And that some people could be
described in English as “an impulsive person” that these actions
are based on emotional impulses or whims; and are somewhat
spontaneous, like “an impulsive kiss” that they are compelling.
The dictionary tells me that to fully understand the meaning of
the word impulsive we should take a read of the word
‘Spontaneous’ which is an adjective that states, that spontaneous
is when a thing occurs, produced or is performed by natural
processes but without any external influence, for example, “a
spontaneous comment” or a “spontaneous movement” and
arises from “personal impulse”.
Much credit is perhaps owed to Freud for originally bringing
public attention to the idea of their being a non-conscious side to
the psyche; despite his model was never shown to be reliable in
research studies. For most of the mid-twentieth century various
eccentrically-theoretical post-Freudian models were created. But
in this modern era considering all the latest complex research
into neurology surely we are capable of coming up with a more
up-to-date and explanatory model of human mental existence?
In the year 2000 researchers Smith and DeCoster began a
systematic comparison of the nine predominant models of
mental life, and compared and contrasted their similarities and
differences; they found they on the whole shared the concept of
two distinctive systems of the psyche. Strack, F. Deutsch, R.
(2004)
Burns and Bechara (2007) explain these two sides “In all cases,
the distinction is between the operations of one system that are
typically fast, automatic, effortless, implicit and habitual, and the
operations of another system that are slow, deliberate, effortful,
explicit and rule governed.” To explain further the differences
between the systems Strack and Deutch (2004) explain “The
reflective system generates behavioural decisions that are based
on knowledge about facts and values, whereas the impulsive
system elicits behaviour through associative links and
motivational orientations”.
Kahneman amongst others outlines the brain to contain two
systems, and impulsive system (one where associations are built
through classic stimulus and response conditioning, and
associations are activated by seeing/hearing associated material
in the environment, and increases when attention paid to it) that
passes variables to its sub-component the reflective system;
which then generalises content into some kind of assumption,
attitude, rationalisation, or the decision to make an action. It
should be pointed out that although the working memory of the
reflective system can ‘work’ data, it can only consider a few
things at a time, and the information considered is nearly always
pre-determined.
In order to begin to understand the process of human choice-
making, we need to understand the process an idea goes
through before it’s acted upon.
Various questions come about from this impulsive/reflective
system. Is it quite as simple as saying there are two clearly
distinct faculties of the human psyche as a unconscious
(impulsive system) and a conscious mind (reflective system); as
previously was theorized; or is there a more complicated series
of processes? In order to determine this perhaps we should look
at the situations that break this model?
Are there impulses that are so strong that immediately they are
carried out into behaviours without the option of a veto taking
place? Is the option of a veto taking place always possible? Is
there a mechanism that offers the option of taking a veto, just as
the very thought itself came from the preconscious why couldn’t
the veto opportunity also appear in that manner?
According to Encarta Encyclopaedia (2006) Will or possessing
will power is a combination of determination and self-discipline
which allows someone to focus on the benefits of the future and
overcome present desires/struggles. However, this definition can
easily be shown to be incorrect as there are for-sure certain
situations in which the impulsive system overpowers the
reflective system.
For example; could you have serious surgery carried out on you
while fully awake knowing that you need to avoid the current
pain in order to achieve the future benefit of being healthy? The
answer is likely no. When I think back to a time when my
shoulder became dislocated the doctors attempted to put my
arm back into the socket while I was fully conscious; they gave
me a gag to put in my mouth; I told them “I want my arm back
in the socket, I don’t need a gag” they disagreed, they said that I
would have no option (despite my best intentions) but to scream
uncontrollably – They were right – it was so painful that my arm
went into spasm and they had no choice but to put me to sleep
in order to perform the surgery. Perhaps pain isn’t the only
circumstance that an impulsive amygdala emotion can burst
through and overcome the reflective system; perhaps also
pleasure seeking can also have the same effect? Why would
someone resist the temptation to have something irresistible, or
delay the gratification from something that is appealing?
If you walked into a dark alleyway and there you discovered a
briefcase full of money in high bill notes, just lying there – would
you take it and run? It’s a tough decision; and for you to weigh
up all the pros-and-cons of taking the money would require a
great amount of reflection and processing; running through
dozens of hypothetical outcomes, then counter-moves that you
could take in response to those twists and turns of life as a result
of taking the money; to process such a task could require as
much detail as writing a book like this one takes, you need to
consider everything. But the problem with ‘just finding a
briefcase in an alleyway’ if by its innate quality; you don’t have
time to ponder because unless you take it now the opportunity
will disappear, and if you go back another time to grab it then
that also requires a great deal of processing as to whether
coming back for it is even more risky?
The authors Burns and Berchara (2007) eventually come to a
utilitarian conclusion that reflects the economic model that we
shall later propose that governs human decision making. “The
final decision is determined by the relative strengths of that pain
or pleasure signals associated with immediate or future
prospects. When the immediate prospect is unpleasant, but the
future is more pleasant, then the positive signal of future
prospects forms the basis for enduring the unpleasantness of
immediate prospects. Otherwise, the immediate prospects
predominate, and decisions shift towards short-term horizons”
In other-words all the time you are weighing the pro’s (positive
feelings) and (negative feelings) in the immediate short term,
and long term planning of goals; and all these emotional-states
conflict with one another; eventually resulting in an overall state.
That often conflicting imaginative-states are triggered, but
stronger ones gain selective advantage over weaker ones. [see
cognitive priming later in this book]
With each ‘‘thought’’ brought to working memory, the strength
of the somatic state triggered by this ‘‘thought’’ determines
whether the same ‘‘thought’’ is likely to recur (i.e. will be
brought back to memory so that it triggers another somatic state
that reinforces the previous one), or whether the ‘‘thought’’ is
likely to be eliminated. Thus over the course of pondering a
decision, positive and negative somatic markers that are strong
are reinforced, while weak ones are eliminated. This process of
elimination can be very fast. Ultimately, a winner takes all; an
overall, more dominant, somatic state emerges (a ‘‘gut feeling’’
or ‘‘a hunch’’ so to speak) (Burns and Berchara (2007:265)
Many modern cognitive models propose that working memory
shouldn’t be viewed as controlled consciously or reflectively by
some form of pre-frontal executive control. But instead have a
number of subcomponents that can recall, store, and manipulate
memory relatively autonomously and automatically. For
example numerous studies have now been carried out using
modern techniques of interpreting what images people are
imagining. And have shown that even people who have
conscious awareness disorders; for example being in a coma or a
vegetative state due to a car accident etc. are still able to carry
out imagination exercises following the suggestions of a
researcher. In one case study when a young woman in a
vegetative state was asked to imagine playing tennis or navigate
her way around her house, significant activity was observed in
her brain, similar to the activity in the brain of healthy
volunteers performing the same tasks. Alumit Ishai (2010)
The visual cortex is the same part of the brain that allows people
to see pictures and images, whether they are looking at them
through their eyesight, dreaming those pictures as part of a
dream, are hallucinating those experiences as the result of the
suggestions of a hypnotist or simply imagining those images all
use the same part of the brain, and the brain looks roughly
identical to scientists watching it through an MRI scanner
regardless of which way people are viewing pictures inside their
mental capacity. As Berkeley Gallant Lab researcher Shinji
Nishimoto comments “Our natural visual experience is like
watching a movie”.
And a further exciting advance to our understanding about the
visual cortex is now as a result of much hard work scientists at
the university of Berkeley have published a paper along with a
YouTube video that made newspaper reporters go crazy. This
study showed that using an FRMI scanner and some
complicated predictive system that back works from the blood
flow in the brain what neurons are being fired off. Can actually
work out what type of images people are looking at and this
computer system can begin to anticipate what those images that
the person is imagining or watching look like.
“The participants of the study while inside an FMRI scanner
watched two separate sets of Hollywood movie trailers, while
fMRI was used to measure blood flow through the visual cortex,
the part of the brain that processes visual information. On the
computer, the brain was divided into small, three-dimensional
cubes known as volumetric pixels, or voxels.” Yasmin Anwar
(2011)
What you see on the computer screen is the [almost] live video
of what people are seeing within their mental capacity inside
their own head. Eventually, practical applications of the
technology could include a better understanding of what goes
on in the minds of people who cannot communicate verbally,
such as stroke victims, coma patients and people with
neurodegenerative diseases. ; Thereby showing that a great deal
of mental processes occurs without a conscious executive control
being active. Yasmin Anwar (2011).
Studies into imagining without the requirement of a conscious
executive control (because the prefrontal-lobe [conscious
executive control] is damaged for example) lead some
researchers to hypothesize the existence of a unconscious-
executive-control, as it would seem that some other process is
organising, processing, and directing all of the different
associations, information, that is required in order to imagine
such a complex experience.
Strack and Deutsch have broken down the different theoretical
systems that seem to be used when a decision, like the one to
press the button in the original Libet experiment would be
carried out. The Diagram from Strack, F. Deutsch, R. (2004)
demonstrates the various phases.
The way Strack and Deutsch explain it is that in the reflective
system behaviour is elicited as a consequence of a decision
process (however this decision process began pre-consciously)
knowledge about values and probabilities of the necessariness of
making a potential consequence is weighed and integrated to
reach for a behavioural option.
If a decision is made, the reflective system activates appropriate
behavioral schemata through a self-terminating mechanism of
intending, so the intending sequence is activated and a schemata
of associative/attitude/learning is called; this intention process
can be activated either from perceptual input or as a result from
a reflective (imaginary) process. That is to say; behaviour may be
elicited without the persons intention or goal.
What this means is that Primarily inducers (High Arousal,
Drugs, black or white thinking etc.) Trigger fast, automatic, and
obligatory somatic states via the amygdala system, Somatic
states triggered by the amygdala are short lived and habituate
very quickly Bu¨chel, C., Dolan, R. J., Armony, J. L., et al (1999)
Secondary inducers trigger somatic states via the ventromedial
prefrontal cortex from perceived or recalled mental images – and
these are the two ways in which behavioural schemata can be
elicited.
While the amygdala is engaged in emotional situations requiring
a rapid response, i.e. ‘‘low-order’’ emotional reactions arising
from relatively automatic processes. LeDoux, J. (2000), the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex is engaged in emotional
situations driven by thoughts and reflection. Once this initial
amygdala emotional response is over, ‘‘high-order’’ emotional
reactions begin to arise from relatively more controlled, higher-
order processes involved in thinking, reasoning and
consciousness . Schneider, W. & R. M. Shiffrin. (1977)
Unlike the amygdala response, which is sudden and habituates
quickly, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex response is
deliberate, slow, and lasts for a long time. Thus the prefrontal
cortex helps predict the emotion of the future, thereby
forecasting the consequences of one’s own action”.
Somatic states can be induced from (1) primary inducers and (2)
secondary inducers Damasio H (1995) Primary inducers are
innate or learned stimuli that cause pleasurable or aversive
states. Once present in the immediate environment, they
automatically and obligatorily elicit a somatic response. The
actual encounter of a drug by an addicted individual is an
example of a primary inducer Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G. Bechara,
A. Damasio, H. et al (2009). Secondary inducers, on the other
hand, are entities generated by the recall of a personal or
hypothetical emotional event, i.e. ‘‘thoughts’’ and ‘‘memories’’ of
the primary inducer, which elicit a somatic response. The recall
or imagination of a drug experience by an addicted individual is
one example of a secondary inducer (Bechara et al., 2003).
“For example, if we see an elderly person, perceptual features
such as hair color or body posture may activate specific elements
in the impulsive system (see Figure 2). Because such elements
have previously been paired with other features that are
correlated with advanced age, a whole cluster of elderly features
will be activated.”
For example, (as shown above) the “concept of slowness may
become activated in the impulsive system and reflect our direct
or indirect experiences with elderly people. Although the
connections between elements in the impulsive system do not
carry a truth value and do not reflect declarative knowledge
about elderly people being slow, the associative link between
elderly and slow may bias perception and influence behavior if it
is activated… Thus, the impulsive system can be understood as a
system of experiential primacy, in which affective and
nonaffective feelings are generated quickly and without
syllogistic processes of inference. Whereas the logical-Prefrontal-
reflective system is very different Strack, F. & Deutsch, R.
(2002:224)
As shown “The reflective system generates declarative
knowledge by assigning perceptual input to a semantic
category… An important feature of representations in the
reflective system is that they can be flexibly generated and
changed. Thus, the reflective system can solve a multitude of
tasks, such as reasoning, planning, or mental simulation” Strack,
F. & Deutsch, R. (2002:225)
For example; I have just imagined for a moment the idea of
going to the shop and buying a Redbull; which is a caffeinated
energy drink; I imagined the idea of drinking it and then as a
result being perfectly awake and being able to continue with the
writing of the book. I forgot about this thought for a moment,
and then continued writing only to discover that suddenly my
writing seemed slower, and duller, and I seemed less inspired
than a few moments prior to the Redbull imagining.
How are these emotional-Mental-Schematas formed? After a
somatic state has been triggered by a primary inducer and
experienced at least once, a pattern for this somatic state is
formed. For example, recalling or imagining the experience of a
drug re-activates the pattern of the somatic state belonging to the
actual previous encounter of that drug. However, the somatic
state generated by the recall or imagination of using a drug
(secondary inducer) is usually fainter than one triggered by an
actual use of that drug (primary inducer). Walter , H. (2002)
It’s important to note that activation of behavioural schemata
may be automatically activated when there is enough impulse a
result of deprivation (of food for example). With the example of
food if you were on an island and you have no food, it wouldn’t
be long before you start eating plants and licking the mould off
rocks. Strack, F. Deutsch, R. (2004)
This means that it’s important to take into account that for a
proper functioning reflective system to be present, one must not
either be deprived, or be experiencing high levels of arousal
(causing well-practiced dominant responses to occur
impulsively). The reflective system operates most efficiently at
immediate levels of arousal Hull, C. (1943).
It should be briefly covered that Rosenthal a unconscious
executive control theorist – i.e. one of the guys who mentions
there are a great deal of executive processes that occur outside of
awareness; states that he doubts that there is even really
awareness altogether. He states the example of eyesight; for
example in the room I am in there is a dog, the dog is always in
my field of vision however the majority of the time I am
unaware that I am aware of the dog.
But regardless my ability to recognize patterns, and identify
schemata is always present else when the dog begs for attention
I would be unable to recognize that template of schemata. In the
example of the dog merely being present, this is referred to by
Rosenthal as a FOT (First Order Thought) meaning that the
thought is already present although I’m unaware I’m having the
thought that “a dog is present” and then in the example where I
notice the dog is begging for food “The Dog is beginning for
food” I’m now aware that there is a dog in the room, this is a
SOT (second order thought) as I’m aware of something, then a
third order thought would be me being aware that the dog isn’t
just merely begging for food but I’m aware I’m thinking that the
dog wants food. Causing a TOT (third order thought)
This would mean that we are only conscious of mental states;
when we have thoughts about those mental states. This reduces
conscious awareness to a very tiny part of existence; but seems
like an important and accurate contributory comment in
addition to the model outlined that describes the process of
human choice. Dienes, Z. Perner, J.(2006)
Various researchers have shown that our sense of free will is
very complicated. And isn’t as simple and clear cut so far as to
whether we do or don’t have some amount of choice for at least
some of our decisions. But one could argue that even if a single
one of our thoughts or ideas, or actions were not our own then in
fact we are just some form of robot carrying out the prescription
of others or the environment.
What has been demonstrated in this section is that imagined or
real scenarios can be triggered either by executive control or
automatically. In the later economics section we investigate how
environmental conditions can influence our behaviour.
The Seduction Community
“Successful seductions begin with your character, your ability to
radiate some quality that attracts people and stirs their emotions
in a way that is beyond their control. Hypnotized by your
seductive character, your victims will not notice your
subsequent manipulations. It will then be child's play to mislead
and seduce them.” Greene, R.(2004:1)
However it wasn't until Neil Strauss (2005) that seduction
methods became a popular interest for millions of men. The
book that created this movement was 'The Game' it blew
previously a small elite community open to the public, with the
author Neil Strauss successfully selling having his book featured
across worldwide media, and the book placed at the top of the
best seller tables.
This section of the book acts as a debate between the former
ways of NLP seduction as taught by hypnotists such as Ross
Jeffries the friendly Californian, and the newly popularized
methods of tribe building and social status as taught by cool ex-
magician Erik von Markovik (more frequently known by his
stage name 'Mystery').
Whether Hypnotic language or Social Leadership creates
attraction is something that sparks rivalry between the 700
companies that offer to teach their own techniques on how to
pick up girls. The relationship between Suggestive Language
and Social Leadership is central to our discussion.
Can you imagine yourself walking into a bar and announcing to
friends and strangers that you are a pick up artist? As soon as
people hear would they be shocked, amazed, or annoyed that
your attempting to improve your results with the opposite sex.
Perhaps you will be thought of as manipulative or clever for
devising such a sneaky device to capture the hearts of women.
Or maybe you'll worry that you will be exposed or caught out in
your efforts to improve your abilities to communicate.
Although we might want to be hailed as the ultimate king of
mind control, or think of pick-up-advice being clever patterns
that we might expect in a science fiction novel covering the
brainwashing techniques of the U.S government, the advice
usually just consists of general tips and tricks that many young
men and women consider common-knowledge.
Few of us would be surprised to learn, that we most prefer to
agree to the requests of those people we like. And this is what
the seduction community attempt to teach; how to get people to
like you. However, in the pursuit of becoming the most
attractive & convincing guy in the club, many of us have our
own self-judgments that limit us, in going out and delivering
these techniques in a well formed manner.
Many men feel very uncomfortable when approaching women
or retaining any social contract with strangers. You ought to put
an end to that today. If you want to turn out to be truly
influential and powerful in your social interactions you’re going
to have to overlook that fear of rejection. You must assume your
responsibility for making a social contract with strangers.
General Attraction Triggers
Many of us overlook the important tips and tricks that we once
knew that made us King of every social situation, yet still have
the desire to get out the house and bump into intellectually and
expressively interesting people. The politest way to view the
seduction community is a network of people who are looking to
prepare each other to keep in mind the seduction tactics that
many popular guys find natural.
What are the components that cause a person to be fond of and
be fascinated to a person over someone else?
Before we get into how to flirt with people and make them
attracted to you. Let’s place our minds back to what actions girls
take when they are trying to seduce you. Think back to the last
time a girl tried it on with you? Got one? Maybe you did, but
maybe you can’t remember one. This shows us two things, I)
that girl’s don’t make the first move with guys that often. And II)
If you did think of a time and how the girl tried it on with you, it
probably wasn’t that bad an approach and made you feel good
about yourself.
Researcher Monica Moore wanted to investigate the general
attraction triggers between men and women. She wanted to note
the exchanges between men and women when a woman was
trying to seduce a man. So Monica Moore and her team of
researchers observed 200 women at a party. They noticed
various non-verbal solicitation signals. Every time they saw a
repetition of a signal they tallied a score. Here is a list of the
frequency they saw each attraction solicitation signal in
descending order of frequency.
“Smiled at him broadly – 511 times”
“Throw him a short darting glace – 253 times”
“Dance alone to the music – 253 times”
“Looked straight at him then flipped their hair - 139 times”
“Keep a fixed gaze on him – 117 times”
“Looked at him, tossed their head, then looked back – 102 times”
“’Accidentally’ brushed up against him – 96 times”
“Nodded their head at him – 66 times”
“Point to a chair and invite him to sit down – 62 times”
“Tilted their head and touched their exposed neck – 58 times”
“Lick their lips during eye contact- 48 times”
“Tapped his buttocks – 8 times” Leil Lowndes (1997)
These techniques were used by women who were witnessed to
be successful at attracted men using these techniques. But many
of these techniques are similar to what we are going to advise
throughout this attraction section of the book; we are just going
to give them a broader context.
By taking into account the techniques girls use on you, to make
you attracted to them. You will be able to notice quickly, next
time you are surrounded by women, who is attracted to you and
who is not, chances are you didn’t notice in the past.
Once you make a start to using the techniques outlined in this
book you will unexpectedly find that plenty of girls are
interested in you. By learning what women do now you’ll be
able to spot when they are attracted to you while your
displaying your social etiquette.’
Let’s discuss what makes an attractive guy.
Have you ever met the type of guy, who seems to have relentless
energy, perhaps you know someone from work who always
seems to be smiling and helpful come rain or shine. Its amazing
how the skill to be positive, and fun can engage people. Neil
Strauss (Author of the game 2005, p67) writes “your energy level
should be equal to or slightly higher than the woman or group
you’re approaching.
Most people are out to have fun. So if you can add to their fun,
you'll be welcomed into the group” This advice is supported by
psychologist, Peter Borkenau from Bielefeld University he
revealed that happy people use different language, and body
expressions to unhappy people. (Richard Wiseman: 2009, p35)
He found that happy people use a greater frequency of
positively charged words such as 'love', 'like', and 'fond') and
lower frequency of self-references such as 'me', ' 'myself' and 'I')
have a larger variation in the pitch of their voice and speak
slightly faster. If we can mimic the things that positive people
do, we can increase how responsive women are to our requests.
“Suppose you ask a woman out, and she asks what night works
for you. Look at the difference between these two responses:
“Oh any night of the week works. All I really do is sit at home
and watch TV most nights anyway.”
“Wednesday night works best for me. I could actually go out
Tuesday evening, but it would have to be later because I’m
playing racquetball after work. Or we can grab lunch Thursday,
but at night I’m grabbing dinner with some friends”. (Steve Fate,
Steve Reil: 2002, p35)
Look at the dissimilarity between these two answers. The first
conveys to the woman that you have undeniably no life, which is
very unattractive to women. – The second shows that your
positive, upbeat, interesting and people like to be around you.
This communicates that you’re attractive.
In 2007 a seduction book was released and caused many readers
to feel quite shocked! It offered techniques to hypnotize women
during a conversation and make them feel negative associations
towards other men, and experience positive associations towards
you.
This method is scientifically questionable as its frequently been
shown that by using negative emotions such as fear and anxiety
as a motivating factor in selling often causes 'decision paralysis'
negative associations lead to an inability to be experimental and
playful with the world, a piece of research by S. Jones (1965)
With regards to being fun Mystery writes in Mystery. Odom, C.
Strauss, N. (2007’s the Mystery Method, he writes“Be a fun and
playful person, be challenging to women, be slightly
unpredictable, embrace your passions, and develop your social
circle.” by focusing on building social circles both in the short
term a single evening, and over the long term a friendship group
seems a more effective way to motive people to want to be with
you then making them feel negative about portions of their life.
“When at a party whatever you do don’t stand in a corner. Be
sure to mingle and flirt with as many people as possible. There’s
nothing to fear because people will be friendly and rejections are
rare unless you make a fool of yourself” Don Diebal (1991)
Building social value became a predominant theme in PUA (the
seduction community) after the publication of The Game, it is
based on the concept of social proof. The research into social
proof has found that people look to their peers in order to
establish how to act, and who's attractive. For example, nearly
everyone who enters a library does so quietly, without knowing
why, they simply have copied what the situational cues have
indicated and used this as a basis on how to act.
We build these situational cues to establish, the normal way of
evaluating unfamiliar elements “Norms or beliefs about how one
should or is expected to behave in a given situation can exert a
powerful influence on behaviour” (Fishbein and Ajzen: 1975) for
example “Research shows that women rate a man as more
attractive after they've seen another woman smiling at him or
having a good time in his company” Wiseman, R. (2009)
Relativity is (relatively) easy to understand. We find it difficult
to judge things on their own. The value of things is defined by
their surroundings. If we walk into a digital camera shop, we
might assume that the $2,000 dollar camera is the one of the
highest quality. And suppose they outline the cheapest model to
be $160. We then decide to buy a camera somewhere between
those two prices thinking that $160 represents the lowest of
quality, when in reality you can order plenty of good digital
cameras off the internet for $70-80.
Or suppose you’re on a date with a lovely girl, you decide to go
to a nice Italian restaurant somewhere in Soho.
You both take a seat, and across comes the waiter, with the wine
menu! And you need to decide what bottle of wine to splash out
on.... there’s really expensive wines on the bottom of the list, and
really cheap on the top. You don’t want to look cheap, and you
don’t want to look like you don’t appreciate quality, so you
hurriedly decide to have the second cheapest wine!
Restaurant owners know that we think like this, so they more
often than not raise the price of the second cheapest wine, and
reduce the quality, thereby making them the highest profit.
What if you are a single person, not in a relationship of any
sought, and hope to appeal to as many attractive potential
dating partners as possible at an upcoming singles event? What
should you do?
Dan Ariely's advice is to bring a friend who has your basic
physical characteristics (similar coloring, body type, facial
features), but is slightly less attractive than you (-you) (Dan
Ariely: Predictably Irrational)
Researchers have recently shown that personality-relationship
factors between the agent and yourself as a mate are not the only
factors at work when attempting to attract a partner. All our
relationships have a broader social & strategic context; that is to
say, we may not be the only one competing for the affections of
the girl.
Just think about the guy, who follows a girl wherever she goes,
who turns up on her doorstep with flowers. Yet the girl runs a
mile. He phones her but she doesn’t answer the call…
personality factors such as being nice… or attempting to relate to
someone doesn’t necessarily work without considering the
broader context.
And even if the girl is lonely and has no one competing for her
affections, her memories of previous competitors are used to
compare the value of your attempts.
“Tactics of mate attraction that manipulate the cues to
dominance and status will be judged most effective when used
by men in the context of short-term mate competition. We
predicted, therefore, that self-promotion tactics signaling high
levels of dominance and status will be judged most effective for
men in the short-term mating context. Derogation of a
competitor's dominance and status will also be judged most
effective for men in the short-term mating context.” Schmitt,D.
Buss, D.(1996)
Instead of the needy guy, conjure up a guy who smiles, who’s
energetic and on cloud nine being animate in his life. The whole
world seems to know him. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is
smiling around him; he’s forever congratulated on being so well
styled and happy.
An approach that I see work for a large number of young guys is
plainly make relations with as many people as possible, and
appear positive and upbeat throughout. These guys look at
people and genuinely glow a smile, they give direct eye contact.
When the girl and the guy make eye contact, she might turn
away but when she turns back you’re sure you’ve got her.
Everyone’s shy, but by holding someone’s gaze you can really
get them feeling great about themselves and attracted to you.
In mystery’s method, he describes walking around the clubs
with the biggest smile on your face. This sounds crazy! We can
all debate whether that really works, but a smile is contagious.
When you see someone else smile you can’t help but smile
yourself.
Even if you just think they are silly mug you still want to have a
conversation with them regardless about how physically
unattractive or unstylish they might be, you still want to chat to
them.
Instead of a needy guy who is attempting to push his affections
onto a girl, this guy lets the world watch. While he just lives to
the best of his abilities, he sees opportunities constantly, and is
just happy to meet people regardless of where there from or
what they do.
In this situation it’s a social norm for everyone to believe they're
attractive! Success breeds success! And by gaining a few small
supporters it can quickly become an epidemic. Socially accepted
rules, like who's attractive and who's not. “Can be so strong and
so universally held that virtually everyone in that situation
behaves the same regardless of his or her attitude” Brock, T.
Green, M (2005)
To build social proof we need quick ways of generating curiosity
from all around us! Perhaps we could look to celebrities and
how they do it.
Jonny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean dressed in a very
eccentric way! We often hear people say that they preferred his
performance in that film compared to any other films they’ve
seen of him.
When we see something that is a bold clear statement,
something memorable we tend to focus on that thing and ignore
the rest. The bright lighting in the pirates of the Caribbean, his
clear outline of clothing and makeup in combination with his
character form a whole concept for us to perceive.
Peacock Theory
Professional seducers call this skill of spawning a persona that
causes everyone else to look, Peacocking. If you’ve ever been to a
pick up artist conference you will see gangs of young men kitted
out with enormous 70’s style medallions. Showing off Hats with
feathers and fur coats draped down to their pointy Cuban heels.
These seducers mostly claim that the way they dress is one of the
ultimate tips on how to seduce. Can we take their claims
seriously?
They believe, by dressing outlandishly… isn’t to impress an
individual person your speaking to. They often admit the outfits
look ridiculous. Instead they believe that dressing in such a way
creates a social effect, causing everyone to stop and stare at you.
Which makes you seem like the most important person in the
room, by comparison to the lack of interest among everyone else.
It’s an interesting theory. But how could such an effect work in
seduction in the daytime. Suppose we wanted to go to coffee
shops and the high street and attract pretty girls, would dressing
outlandishly benefit us there?
Perhaps the social effect would be lost by the lack of a consistent
group of people.
This in turn sparks debate as to where is the most effective
location to practice your newly acquired skills i.e. when you go
out and practice the persuasion/seduction skills you have learnt
where is the best place to go out and acquire the results of your
new found talent.
Should you go to nightclubs, or bars? Or should you spend time
getting to know people in coffee shops and the streets in the
day?
Perhaps if we go to the bars it might have been too easy to get
girls anyway because they are drunk! And then we haven’t
learnt anything? Or perhaps it’s best to practice in the day that
way we can hear what the other person is saying etc. but what if
there is no one there, or they don’t want to speak because they
are not in the mood?
Maybe we should remind ourselves of what we want to
achieve… if we are really trying to do what we intended, “Get
more & hotter girls” then perhaps that means we should go to
the busiest places.
If you think of nightclubs and bars, think of the long queue
outside of people desperately waiting to get inside and get a
drink! Imagine the bouncers trying to let only the hottest and
most socially adequate people in.
Everyone’s dressed to the hilt, looking and feeling their best and
there’s hundreds to thousands of them, socializing, dancing,
looking to meet new people who they’ve never met before.
No one wants to get dressed up, wait in line, pay high drinks
prices, to be trapped in a noisy room, and listen to someone
else’s music choice. But that’s exactly what millions of single
people across the world do every day!
All these party-goers, could have just as easily, drank cheap
drink, and listened to their own music choice, in the comfort of
their own home... the only difference is, random strangers!
Everyone is looking for people who make their lives more full,
more interesting.
Therefore, it could be said that if you want to practice social
skills like influence, hypnotism, or seduction the best place to
practice is where there is the most people who you can quickly
get into conversation with.
The general public in the day may possibly just be running
between coffee and the office. Or having a quick shop before
they go home, they aren’t necessarily in the mood or used to
speaking to strangers at this time of day. When they go out later
or at the weekend they will be and then you can work on the
social factors that cause you to be attractive.
Entourage Gaming
In a busy venue, originating social power means ‘giving value to
a venue’. This is all about being the most fun person in the room!
And giving the impression that you are somewhat a leader in
one or many of the various social circles.
It’s been shown by a piece of research that those individuals in
nightclubs etc. who appear to be at the center of social circles,
even if they aren't actually even necessarily part of the group
they appear to be surrounded by, will be rated significantly
more attractive than their 'non surrounded' counterparts.
A study that shows this was investigated by Psychologist Priya
Raghubir And Ana Valenzuela. They analyzed thousands of
episodes of the television quiz show the weakest link. In the
show contests stand in a semi-circle, and answer questions about
general knowledge, then contestants get to vote off other
contestants at the end of each round. The contestant in the center
of the semi-circle, won the game 45% of the time! (meaning that
they weren't voted off by other competitors) P. Raghubi; and, A
Valenzuela (2006) as seating positions were assigned by random,
this means that it had little to do with the intelligence or the
personality of the people standing there. Yet the social effect was
massive!
To create this kind of effect (Often called Entourage Gaming by
the seduction community) where those around us will inherently
like us, and girls to be attracted to us, means that you take a
social situation and to try to become the leader of it, one method
to do this could be; to make an effort to greet everyone who
enters the venue, the benefits of such an action can pay off
exponentially, as it typically means that everyone in the club
knows you more than they know any other stranger so
frequently their mind runs to you, and you will find yourself
surrounded by lots of people which only attracts interest from
more people.
Bring to mind the girl that slipped away… that one you couldn’t
catch, and the more you tried to pursue her, the more distant she
turn out to be! Damn, you wanted that girl so bad.
You might wonder, why do we always want the things we can’t
have?
We all desire things that are in a great deal of demand, but are in
short supply.
Seduction advice is an attempt to change that! Rather than to do
the typically thing and pursue the girls we want without any
kind of sense of a plan. We instead focus on being valuable and
appealing to others.
In this scenario, you create environment where everyone
perceives you as attractive and you suck her into it!
Research into supply and demand shows us that, humans find
things in high demand to be more attractive, when compared
against objects/people who they could easily acquire because of
the lesser competition for them.
If you think about it this makes a great deal of sense, consider
the lack of diamonds or gold but how many people desire them
for no real reason. According to the theory, the more on display
an item is, (i.e. shown to the widest possible audience) while at
the same time being only possible to acquire by a select few, the
more desirable that item (or person) will be.
Evolution explains that , when individuals live in groups, they
compete with each other for valuable resources. Competition
among members of the same species for reproductively relevant
resources is the cornerstone of Darwin's (1859) theory of natural
selection Eberhard, M.(1975). Whenever the interests of two
individuals donot coincide, competition can ensue Buss, D.
(1989)
A study by Stephen Worchel, at the university of Hawaii
demonstrated that biscuits that are consumed from a jar that is
almost empty are significantly more tasty in the mind of the
consumer compared with biscuits consumed from a full jar.
I’ve had numerous conversations with guys who ask me to help
them get their ex-partner back, or how to help them get with
their high school sweetheart. They’ve told the girl numerous
times that they are attracted and that they really want to be with
the girl, but they keep getting turned down.
They ask me, “What should I do to get with that girl?” The
answer I have to tell this is surely a bit of a disappointment. By
being attracted to one girl and her clearly knowing about it,
makes her feel precious and special and that she’s important and
in demand and that your unattractive to anyone, and that no one
wants you. It makes you lack value.
“Dwelling on one particular girl, and relying on her for your
happiness in life – before you’re actually in a relationship with
her – is deadly. Successful men are busy with their own lives,
and while happy to spend their time with women, are not
always available due to other commitments.” Fate,J. Reil, S.
(2003)
The results from the cookie study is in line with the writings of
Mystery one of the popularizes of the 2005 onwards seduction
community, he states “Women are searching for a man whose
reality is more fun and valuable than their own. You must be
congruent with the value that you have to offer, and it be
apparent to the room” Mystery. Odom, C. Strauss, N. (2007)
Its been shown that when a guy is shown to be a leader of men, a
protector of love ones, and in demand by women then he is
rated much more attractive in studies than his less socially in
demand counterpart. Wiseman, R. (2009)
There is a great deal of PUA advice that mentions the concept of
inner game what they mean by this is that by being a confident
person you don't have too much concern about being negative,
you simply think in positive ways and see the universe as a
place of abundance.
Every year thousands of guys go on Seduction Bootcamps,
where they train in methods like those mentioned on how to get
girls! I've heard hundreds of students complain that they haven't
been with a girl in months or years, and they explain that they
don't know why?! And then you later on in the discussion ask
them what they do about it? and the typical anything is
“nothing”.
These are often, young intelligent guys who maybe at some
point in their lives did OK with girls, and then have forgot the
method, or for others they never have had any success, and its
like other guys have all the luck.
On seduction bootcamps, guys often complain when the trainer
pushes them to speak to girls, the guy may say “Yeah, I would
speak to her... but I don't fancy that kind of girl” or another
common one is “I don't like going into busy places”.
These two self limitations, are absolute game killers, its
impossible to move on with them. The aim, is to be the most fun
guy in the room.. and to be open and free with everyone you
meet. Self-judgements like the ones above, take away the fun!
And stop you being flirty!
Inner game
Neil Strauss the author of the 2005 book 'The Game’ writes,
“Always have something better to do than meeting women. As
soon as you start staring at, evaluating, or ogling a woman in
front of you, even if she can't see you, you've just lost every
woman behind you.... you don't seem interesting, fun or worth
meeting” Neil Strauss (Rules of the game)
The concept of Inner game assumes that if you achieve a
confident mind-set that you will show more attractive body
language. For example, smiling has been shown to increase the
attraction rating by evaluators in a series of research studies by
various researchers. Mystery Writes that by “learning back and
speaking with authority you increase your attractiveness by
300%” Mystery; (2010) Another example of really good body
language is to lift your head slightly so that your chin is pointing
slightly into the air. This conveys that your positive and upbeat
and proud of yourself subtly.
Although there are few resources that prove these assumptions
on body language, the assumption is that if you could combine
all the data that involves getting your body language and
language performed in a persuasive manner you should have
dramatically more impressive results than those individuals who
have no theoretical grounding in such skills.
Supply and demand
Create interest from people first! Is a core recommendation of
the seduction community. Being interested in other people can
sometimes look as if you don't have supply and demand in your
favor.
When you've built interest then attraction, then she is ready to
have you tell her that you’re interested in her she will be prime
to reciprocate the compliment.
We all are suckers for compliments “What should you
compliment on? Just about anything; their necklace, perfume,
eyes, shoes, watch, bracelet, hat, scarf, hair, the color of their
shirt.” Fate,J. Reil, S. (2003:24) As long as you say compliments
sincerely they will be treated with a genuine positive response.
Don’t go overboard but you should be complimenting nearly
everyone you meet on just one thing! That way your
communicating that you’re paying attention to the person you’re
talking to.
Providing you’re not conveying that you’re interested in
someone, without them being un-attracted to you, then a
compliment is never a bad thing. This is why as a rule many
seducers recommend that you combine a compliment with some
indication that you’re not actually sexually interested, or saying
the compliment for any ulterior motive.
Before we give people too much attention we need to be sure
that they are reeled into us.
Where they become highly interested, to hear what you have to
say, you give them a brief compliment and then push them back
away until they come forwards to hear what you have to say
again.
This is known as push and pull technique in popular attraction
psychology.
When you compliment a girl, don’t compliment physical traits.
This comes across insensitive. And that you’re not actually
accounting for socially attractive factors which are way more
important than physical characteristics.
This concept is that whenever you give a compliment to
someone it must be both indicating your interest in that person
but also indicating your disinterest (i.e. that you’re not directly
complimenting that person because you think they are better
than you) thereby maintaining your power as the leader of the
group. This can be a difficult dichotomy to reconcile in the mind
of a new seducer or persuader, because on one hand you need to
be open and exposed to everyone, the person in the room who
draws in the most attention but on the other hand you need to be
unavailable.
Psychology of Seduction
This concept, of waiting for interest from others before
responding with your own interest and then taking it away
again, has gained scientific support from various researchers, for
example Hadfield conducted a series of interviews in order to
determine the best way to be to attract a sexual partner, through
these conversations it came out that the importance lies in
demonstrating that you are in high demand but being very clear
that you have chosen the person your speaking to. Hatfield, E.
Rapson, R. (1988) Worchel, S., Lee, J., and Adewole, A. (1975)
Social Proof could be considered a method to indicate attractive
qualities about yourself without having to list them. It’s an
illustrative way of presenting that you’re an interesting person
without having to brag about yourself. It’s illustrative of your
value rather than you describing it.
You can easily build interest from a girl, by speaking in positive
terms, about yourself, about others and about life in general, you
will have her admire you for being such a happy fun person,
who she wants to be around.
Research to support this has been carried out by John
Skowronski (1998) from Ohio University at Newark.
He investigated the downside of spreading gossip, but also the
upside of applauding and speaking positively about the social
scene around you. Participants in the study watched videos of
actors talking about a third party (a friend or acquaintance of the
actor) in a negative light such as “he hates animals, today I saw
him kick a puppy out of his way” afterwards the participants
were asked to rate the personality of the actor, regardless of the
fact that the speaker was criticizing someone else for somewhat
unethical actions the audience still rated that they didn't like the
speaker or find him at all attractive. Wiseman (2009:57)
These can often be called “Third Party compliments. This means
complimenting people who are not present. Most the time when
you hear two people talking about someone, they are saying
negative things about that person. Women will be extremely
impressed and appreciate the fact that your not only don’t say
derogatory things behind their backs, but instead have positive
things to say about them.” Fate,J. Reil, S. (2003)
You know when you’ve got a girlfriend, and all of a sudden all
these girls magically appear. All of which immediately state they
are attracted to you and would very much like to be with you.
Where do they suddenly come from? Where were they during
the past year when you were single constantly looking for
someone to spend time with.
We’ve shown that been surrounded and looking interesting
attracts people. But does been seen with girls make other girls,
jealous and thus want to be with you?
The seduction community seems to think so. This is referred to
as ‘Jealously Plotline’ and it was developed after many seducers
found themselves being more sort after when having a
girlfriend.
Women seem to rate attractiveness of a potential mate based on
how in demand they are to other females.
Therefore seducers will often surround themselves with a female
audience and never appear to pay too much interest to any one
girl to the audience, yet every girl is under the impression that
they have a special relationship with the seducer. Various
studies have shown the effectiveness of social proof on ratings of
attractiveness.
To create this kind of ‘effect’ where you appear to be in demand
from females, simply requires a bit of stage management. Where
you stand, who you speak to, who’s watching you when you
speak to them.
One method of creating this jealously effect is to simply lean
against a wall, or sit down while someone is speaking to you,
leaving them locking you in to that position. That way it will
appear that your surrounded by girls who are standing up
trying to speak to you, while you appear laid back as if being in
this much demand is a day-to-day experience for you.
So far we have covered ‘how gain peoples interest’ and how to
socialize in a group situation, according to the seduction
community and relevant research. By building social proof, in
these ways your likely to be more persuasive and listened to
when you speak.
Now we’d like to move on slightly; so we can explore, “How to
speak to the girl, and her friends”.
Even for the ultimate player, when speaking to a girl they really
like, they have no choice but to feel excited, blush and lose their
intelligence! It happens to the best of us.
To worry about that, is to be human. There are a number of tips
that make it a lot easier to overcome any sense of self-doubt.
When we speak, we should always work towards trying to
become the leader of the social group, as Researcher Charlan
Nemeth et al explains that a person who plays devil advocate
will be much less effective at promoting these new ideas
amongst group members compared with someone who is a
majority member of the social group is more likely to be taken
on board. (I feel like this needs expanding)
This means, when attempting to speak to a girl you like, its
important first to speak to her friends and surrounding
colleagues before speaking to her.
Once we are established as interesting, and are becoming
somewhat a group leader. Then its important to focus on the
relationship between yourself and the girl your trying to attract.
This is referred to as the comfort stage. It involves using the
persuasion skill of commonality.
Commonality is a skill you’ve used many times before! It’s when
we imply we are similar to our audience.
You’ve probably heard the phrase
“People like people like them”
There is some truth in that phrase! Car sales people tend to claim
they’ve got a sister who lives in the place you’re from or that
they own a car just like the one you’re looking at.
We apply it to demonstrate that we are much the same as them.
This makes it easy for the person to understand and recognize
the things we assert, thanks to the content being relevant to
them.
In persuasion this allows us, to relate their reality to a suggested
reality that we are persuading them into.
A good example of creating commonality in the seduction
community is the use of situational openers these are opening
statements you make about the environment that connect you
and the female that you wish to speak to so you are both
'reading from the same hymn sheet' so to speak. For example “its
cold in here, isn't it? Hey... I've been thinking about something,
maybe you could give me a perspective on this”
Creating commonality
Creating commonality, i.e. through an opener can be extremely
effective at allowing you to then get someone to be compliant i.e.
to mimic your beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, and therefore
oblige to your following requests. Researcher, Ellen Langer et al
tested this concept, Langer arranged a stranger to approach
someone waiting in line to use a photocopier and simply ask,
'excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”
faced with this direct request to cut ahead in the line, 60% of
people agreed to allow the stranger to go ahead of them. When
the stranger followed the request with a reason “'May I use the
Xerox machine, because I am in a rush' almost everyone 94%
complied. One might think that the reason actually relating to
the circumstance is important but it has being shown that just
the connection between the current scenario and giving a reason
why it could be another way causes a response in almost
everyone to comply.
In one study they found that the features that induced attraction
(cf. Cate & Koval, 1983). were physical attractiveness,
geographical proximity, attitude similarity, and personality
complementarity lead to greater romantic attraction between
individuals Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. ( 1967 ); Eckland,
B. ( 1968 ); Winch, P. (1990)
Rapport Building
Your current response to listening to women telling you all of
their problems might be to look for the nearest exit and run
away! “Because the only reason you were listening in the first
place was likely because she is a gorgeous girl. You would never
listen to an ugly girl complain. While this reaction to listening to
a beautiful woman’s problems is nothing more than male
instinct it’s time to change your behavior. by actually listening to
all girls. Next time a woman discusses her problems with you,
don’t just act like your listening, but genuinely listen. Listen to
every word she says. Ask more questions to demonstrate your
interest. And, more importantly, match her emotion.”
Part of the process of creating commonality is to listen to the
words that people use and then to repeat them back; this is a
method called Mirroring or building Rapport which is a
technique that came from the late 1970's NLP movement.
We all seem to like to hear our own words back and this
convinces us that we are consistent and whatever is said next by
the person speaking to us relates to us directly but also even if it
is a slight extension of what we are saying at least it directly
relates to our own self of existence, a piece of research by Rick
Van Baaren et al (2003) shows this, it shows that when food
servers repeated back the order of the customers without any
nice-ness the repeating back of the order alone pushed up the
tips received by 70%.
Emotion matching is important to pacing someone’s reality. “By
matching a woman’s mood, whether happy or sad, she feels
emotionally connected to you. If a woman’s telling a sad story,
respond with;
“Awww I’m really sorry to hear that”.
If a woman is complaining about something, show her you
understand:
“Yeah I know what you mean”
If a woman is telling a happy story, get happy with her.
“Wow that’s incredible! What did you do?”. Fate,J. Reil, S.
(2003)
Once we’ve used our words and body language to communicate
that we are similar to the girls (and boys) we are speaking to.
Then we can lead their realities, by relating persuasive messages
directly to them.
We are not just trying to copy their body language, but we are
attempting to get them to mimic us as a soft compliance test to
see if they are following our social proof, by leading them to
mimic body language that signals feelings of attraction, we cause
them to feel those feelings. One example of this is; Eye contact
with the opposite sex.
Eye contact has been consistently shown to lead to feelings of
attraction and in many cases, love. Therefore technique that
could be categorized as body language is the use of eye contact.
A British scientist determined that, on average, when talking,
people look at one another only 30 to 60 percent of the time. This
is not enough to rev up the engine of love at first sight. Zick
Rubin became fascinated about how to measure and create love!
In his study “Measurement of romantic love” he found that
people who were deeply in love gaze at each other much more
when talking and slower to look away when someone intrudes
in their world” Leil Lowdres: (1997:37)
To give someone the feeling that the two of you are already in
love (a self-fulfilling prophecy). Means dramatically increasing
the eye contact between you both while the two of you are
chatting. When you push up the eye contact so that you are
doing this 75% of the time or more a chemical hormone called
PEA is often released that is associated with the dilation of the
pupils and an elated feeling of wellbeing.
“While you’re cruising the nightclubs always keep that sexy-
looking gleam in your eyes. Literally try to melt women with
your eyes. If you make eye contact with a woman, make sure
that you give her a friendly smile and if close enough to you,
simply say “Hi”. If you make eye contact with a woman across
the way from you, and she turns away, don’t give up on her. Try
to make eye contact again and smile at her. If she smiles back,
approach her immediately” Don Diebel (1991: p21)
In one investigation exploring the links between eye contact and
attraction, Richard Wiseman (2009) showed that when male and
female participants were forced to stare into each other’s eyes for
2 minutes, their attraction rating of the other partner was six
times higher than those who didn't engage in the staring
exercise.
The feeling of elation and attraction is further brought on by
pupil dilation. It’s a two way process, when we are attracted to
someone our pupils dilate, and we are attracted to people who
have dilated pupils. Dr Eckhard Hess (1973), demonstrated that
large pupils were more alluring by showing two pictures of a
woman’s face to a group of men. The pictures were identical
except, in one of them, Hess had retouched the lady’s pupils to
make them larger. The male response to Ms. Big Pupils was
twice as strong as to the identical woman with small pupils.
Hess then reversed the experiment to perform it on women and
they were twice as attracted to the larger male pupil’s also.
We can’t control the physiological response of pupil dilation, it’s
something that happens automatically when we are excited or
interested in something. So when your engaging in eye contact
with a girl be sure to focus on all the reasons you think she’s
stunning, smart and kind and you’ll get big pupils sure to attract
her in response.
Most guys when they talk to women, they just stare in one place
or down at the floor. If they do so accidentally catch the eye of a
woman they look away as quickly as possible and let it go at
that.
The most successful guys at getting girls and persuading others,
flirt with as many people as they can! Whether its guys or girls!
By doing this you’ll have a lot more fun and you’ll find everyone
will be romantically attracted to you.
Sharing secrets & suggestion
It has also been shown that the Sharing of secrets or a shared
metaphorical reality is a method that can quickly cause the two
people who engage in the process together to fall in love. In the
seduction community a routine called 'accelerated reality' where
you joke about what it would be like if you had a house and
kids, and what they would look like causes the participant
engaging in the imagining to feel as if that reality could be
possible and then theoretically fall in love with you. Another
example of such a accelerated reality could be the idea of going
on a holiday or traveling.
I learn't about the importance of sharing of secrets, suggestion in
seduction from an interesting story that happened on my first
evening of partying ever! I wasn't the most popular guy in
school, I was 14, and felt like a geek. In anticipation of finally
being able to go out and attract girls (our former boys school
only had 3-4girls in her year group), I had read 'Men are from
Mars and Women are from Venus'. It suggested different people
liked different colors. So I decided this would be an interesting
opening story with girls.
We entered Emporium Nightclub, one of the busiest UK super-
clubs of the late nineties early 20's. Amongst the smoke, and
lights of the nightclub, I saw a girl look at me, so I walked over
and said “What’s your favourite colour” “Purple” she replied
“Cool, my favourite colour is yellow, you know like the sun, or a
beach, really happy things... I read in a book that colours mean
something, and that people are attracted to people who like
yellow, because we are all attracted to the sun”. (Saying this
while pointing to myself)
That night using that line I kissed 13 girls and within two weeks
I had lost my virginity. Within the next months I had kissed
hundreds of girls using that line. Only today knowing what I
know about attraction, sharing, and suggestion does my
beginners luck make any sense.
Psychologist Arthur Aron investigated what occurred when
such sharing conversations occurred. What is the factor that
causes such silly exchanges to create attraction?
Could the act of disclosing personal information to another
person make you feel especially close to that person?
The research work of Aron, involved people who didn't know
one another, and instructed to chat about increasingly private
aspects of their lives. By asking each other a series of preset
questions. - “If you could meet anyone in history who would it
be?”, “Do you have a hunch about how and when your going to
die?” finally progressing to “When did you last cry in front of
someone” Richard Wiseman (2009:172)
whether by forcing people to disclose personal information to
another person could make you feel exceptionally close to that
person, this research called The sharing game caused many of its
participants to exchange phone numbers etc. and continue to
meet after the study.
Kino Escalation
During the comfort stage of the interaction there is a strong
emphasis in seduction literature to increase the level of touch
between yourself and the person your trying to build an intimate
relationship with, this is called Kino Escalation some writers
mention that there is a sequence of places that could be
recommended to touch before the interaction turns particularly
imitate and that people should be touched roughly in this order.
Its been frequently shown by researchers that when the level of
touch increases, so does your attractiveness and persuasiveness,
In a study by research psychologist N. Gueguen (2007) to test
the effect of touch on persuasion and attraction, researchers
approached a total of 240 women, told them they were really
pretty, suggested going for a drink later in the day and asked for
their telephone number. While another group approached 240
women told them that they were really pretty, suggested that
they could go for drink later in the day and asked for their
telephone number. The results in numbers for the first group
received an average of 24 phone numbers, whereas the group
who did a simple touch received an average of 48 phone
numbers. It was shown that the probability of picking up a girl
in the street increases by double if you touch her.
Another study that shows that touching increases how attractive
your rated and how likely your able to escalate with the opposite
sex has been shown. Its amazing how effective touching
someone on the upper arm for even just a second or two can
have a surprisingly large effect on the amount of support they
provide when it comes to helping you with a request.
In one experiment N. Gueguen (2007) arranged for a man to
approach 120 women in a nightclub over a 3 week period. The
approach had the assistant say “Hello, my name is Antoine. Do
you want to dance?” half the time the request was accomplied
by a light touch on the top of the woman's arm and the other half
involved no touch at the request stage.
In the nightclub, women accepted the request 65% of the time
with a touch whereas only 43% without a touch. In one research
experiment it was found that when the assistants went out into
the streets and asked people for a dime a brief touch on the
forearm increased the likelihood of getting the money by 20%. in
another study, when experimenters asked for girls phone
numbers in the street using the following introduction “Hey,
your really pretty, it would be great to get your number” the
chance of receiving the number went up from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5
when a touch was applied to the forearm of the agent.
According to the seduction author Leil Lowdres (1995) Body
language typically occurs in a sequence. Firstly there is an
exchange of non-verbal cues that cause the initiation of the
conversation. These might be smiling or initial mouthing of the
word “hi”. Proximity to one another, and bumping into to one
another.
The second stage of body language is that two parties then begin
exchanging in converse. One of them speaks initially and then
they both begin chatting.
Step three is turning. This after one parties begins the initial “Hi”
the other one turns towards them. The approacher has the least
power, and the approached makes the choice to turn as they see
wish. Initially the turner might only turn their head to speak to
the seducer.
But as their sexual tension grows and they become more
attracted to one another the level of touching increases and they
begin facing torso to torso to one another and then their knees
begin facing also. This gradual process of facing full on to one
another is a gentle exchange that can easily be led through the
art of noticing where she is at and progressing your signals in
order to encourage them from her.
Isolate the agent
Typically seducers will find it easier to progress with a girl in
new social situations away from her friends, so this means
taking her from the venue or into a separate isolated space of the
venue where you can speak to touch quietly and its comfortable
and there isn't concern from friends or ex-partners etc, that is to
say there is no social consequence, in the seduction community
this changing of venue is called a bounce.
The seduction community states that “The completion of the
bounce represents that all goals have been achieved, or are about
to be.” its important to pay attention to the order of advice, and
not to leap ahead. All techniques must be used with compliance
testing on responsive individuals who follow your lead and
increase the levels of touch, sharing, commonality, and
engagement with you.
If you don't soft compliance test that she is moving with you and
instead run patterns on her that she is not ready to receive, for
example; insisting on going back to your house, or increasing
your levels of touch, or exchanging secrets without earning your
position to do so, you will be communicating interest without
disinterest, you will be communicating that she is in demand,
and you are in abundant supply, and as we shall discover is not
a workable competitive advantage and is mathematically
unrewarding in all areas of social life.
Persuasion
Would you feel powerful if you could make anybody want to be
your friend, and then get them to do anything you want? Robert
Calidni outlines weapons of influence that make people feel
progressively more committed to the persuasive frames we place
in front of them.
This might mean we get people involved in a moment
(consistency); we make it seem as if everyone is doing this thing
(social proof), we relate the message to our audience
(commonality), or we make it seem that you’ve got to get this
thing now before you lose your opportunity (scarcity).
What we would like to cover is ways in which you can be
naturally persuasive. The impact you make through your
interactions can have a beneficial effect for society and in turn
increase the fruits you receive in this life.
We really can be influenced to do anything (at least in theory)
such as the things we witness stage hypnosis do on stage. A
scary thought!
… Wait, Isn’t Persuasion Evil?
Obviously, the idea of using hypnotic-like persuasion to
influence anyone to do anything; scares some people!
Lets first discuss why.... Some of us, have strong religious values
that we wouldn't want changed, some of us are in love with our
partners and don't want to suddenly be in love with someone
else. Some have political ideas they want to remain untouched,
or company secrets they must keep hidden.
Such hypnotic espionage isn't a concern.
Many of us, don’t set out to persuade others. We tend to have
the attitude “Live and let live” this mentality is that we do not
feel we should actively persuade others according to our desires.
They say people should be able to do, think and feel the way
they want to. Gulledge, A (2004) Nevertheless, people are
undoubtedly influenced constantly by their surroundings. If
you’ve ever communicated anything to anyone, then you’ve
probably used persuasion techniques whether you realize it or
not. And even if you haven’t communicated, you’ve remained
silent, you’ve still communicated something.
There’s plenty of people who’s living depends on persuading
others to do and believe what we want, politicians convince us
that their idea to produce spending cuts will benefit society, or
that the tax they are placing is necessary in order to defend our
kingdom.
Some sales people claim that they can get any customer to buy
anything. Regardless of price, its often stated that 20% of the
salesman within a company make up 80% of the sales. Some
guys really seem that they can have us what we believe
whatever they would like.
Con-men seem able to walk away with people's money, and the
victims were completely convinced the man was doing them a
favor. Typically describing him as seeming so kind, or nice.
Magicians do magic tricks on us, where the trick is happening
right before our eyes, yet we fail to notice the things that cause
the magic to happen.
Hypnotists on television seem to be able to convince people who
look just like people we know, to dance around believing they
are Michael Jackson, or forgetting their own names.
What exactly is going on, and what do all these types of
influence have in common? Modern research and perspectives
amongst various communities have solutions as to how we can
become better at how to use social skills to our advantage.
We all have things that we would like to sway others of. Perhaps
it’s that girl we want to go on a date with us, or to make the job
interviewer want to hire us, or an entire populace to feel
compelled to purchase from our advertisements as a capitalist.
When learning about social skills, one thing strikes me about
people who train on courses and my own journey through this
process is that often others don't perceive us to be quite as big
clever or cool as we might hope. It’s like even our closest allies
seem like they don't understand us.
In many therapies, the therapist attempts to use the language of
the client in order to represent the world in a way the client sees
it, and therefore from there further delve into the issues that
maintains their psychological distress. However this seems
somewhat a trick, that the therapist is merely copying the client
to pretend they understand when really they have no clue.
This experience of 'being alone in this world' (Phenomenology)
is a component of human life that we all learn to live with, but
modern day research offers solutions that gets people motivated
in your ideas and thus feel like they understand you.
When we follow someone’s influence. It’s because, we believe
it’s the right thing to do. We make a choice to change our mind
about what we believe, about how we act, because we believe
the new option is better than the old one.
Perhaps, the idea that people can do things or change their mind
so quickly is surprising! But your mind always firmly belonged
to you, and always will.
People simply cannot be 'forced' to do anything. And people will
only do and believe things that benefit them! Simon, H. (1978)
People responding to persuasion, hypnosis, influence, social
leadership and the like have no alternations in the brain that can
be noticed, that is to say, there are no physiological signs that
constitute an altered state. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. and Sjuberg, B.
M. (1961); Brafman and Kirsch, (1999) Kirsch and Braffman,
(2001.) People are perfectly conscious, awake, and make choices
just as they always do.
Subjects, sense involuntariness. But are not actually involuntary,
Nash, Barnier (2008 :35) the subjects who sense involuntariness
experience high levels of cognitive dissonance between the
cross-compartment values, in their mind, and their sense of
morals, ethics, and other rules about the world don't fit as
closely as that of an impulsive happy go lucky person.
When we persuade people, we allow people to see beyond their
rules, and imagine anything! And the truth is, all of us on this
planet are so similar that, if someone else can believe something,
or do something, so can we!
Subjects with high cognitive dissonance “ are no longer aware of
their 'sense of effort' or the prior intention that normally
accompanies a deliberate act... in the absence of awareness of
their own intentions patients will experience their own thoughts
and feelings as being caused, not by themselves but by some
alien force” (Frith: 1992 ppp 114-115)
Where you place your attention, is always towards things that
interest you. It’s your mind working for your benefit, to reach
higher utility.
Everyone is responsive to influence techniques, even though we
might not feel like it. Persuasion author Kevin Dutton
emphasizes this by saying “Our brains can be immobilized, like
they’ve been infected with some kind of virus.” He told this to a
friend, who told him this story;
“Several years ago, I was at a workshop” said the friend. “It was
held by an ex special forces martial arts instructor – He lined us
up against a wall and told us to clasp our hands together – he
told us “he was going to hack into our brains and hijack our free
will – before you know it my hands were stuck together and I
began worrying that my wallet was going to be taken Dutton,. K
(2010, p204)
These acts are common practice for a hypnotist, even more
common for a magician who combines his misdirection skills
with the art of social science. Suggestion is implying that
something is likely to happen pushed forwards by an imagined
idea that occurs automatically outside of our ability to conscious
control it, even instructing someone’s arm to feel lighter by
implying it’s tied to helium balloons will cause it to rise. If
you’ve never done that routine I recommend you do that on
someone today and you’ll have a much more in-depth
understanding of the power of this book.
So if everyone’s suggestible and isn't confined to some special
state, then how do some guys convince others to do exactly what
they want? You've probably had a friend, you know the person
who always seems to get what they want, they've always seem
to be popular, always have money and can just seem to get
anything they want, how did they get all the luck?
Many of us may resent those people thinking that they use
people or that they aren't nice to anyone. There are several
reasons why these people do 'always seem to have all the luck'
there are two important tactics that such people employ and will
allow you to become a more likeable, compelling and ultimately
'lucky' person.
Reciprocity of favors
As we aim to set out during the book, one of our goals is to
understand why some people listen to us meticulously, hanging
on our every word, and then communicating to them (providing
we do it in the right manner) nearly always results in the
outcome we desire with that person. In order to understand how
we can get others to like us we cover a range of techniques,
many of which have been pushed forwards and developed by
the Professor; Robert Calidini, and he refers to them as his
weapons of influence; the first one we cover is Reciprocity of
favours.
Many of us may recall from our own personal experience that
often a little courtesy can go a long way, and that often when we
do a small kindness for someone we can usually can get a little
favour back. Perhaps you've had a friend and you've always
wondered why they are offering you free things, doing small
favours for you, but later on you find it difficult to separate
yourself from them because you feel an affiliation. What if we
could take someone who was a complete stranger and cause
them to feel a strong bond with us and them to be completely
grateful for the relationship rather than resentful.
Benjamin Franklin (Born 1706), is world renowned for being a
scientist and philosopher, amongst many other things. He was
considered the inventor of bifocals, the odometer and the
lighting rod. Throughout his life he had a fascination with
persuasion, for example he had studied mesmerism and
genuinely believed that it turned people into robot like figures,
who do exactly what you tell them.
When Franklin was involved in politics, he had opposition from
another gentleman, Franklin believed that if he could cause this
man to like him then it would be greatly beneficial to his
political ambitions. However this man hated Franklin. So
Franklin knowing what he knows about the human disposition
from his various research he hatched a plan. Franklin believed
that the way to win people over was, he said “He that has once
done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than
he whom you yourself have obliged.”
Therefore his plan to make this man into an ally went as
followed, Franklin states “I did not, aim at gaining his favour by
paying any servile respect to him. But instead took a method. I
write a note to him expressing my desire of perusing a rare book
in his library, and requesting he would do the favour of lending
it to me. A few days later, he sent the book, and I returned in a
week with another note, thanking him for the favour... Next time
we met, he spoke to me, with great civility and manifested a
reediness to serve me on all occasions. We became great
friends.” (Cialdini et al: 2007, p73)
According to psychologists there is a great deal of research into
the use of favours to build relationships between strangers,
contrary to many people's opinions that persuasion often
involves forcing people to do things for us, its been consistently
shown that by increasing your popularity and offering people
favours can often pay off dividends if done in the right way.
The research into persuasion shows that often with a small
favour either committed for you by a stranger or on a stranger
can quickly lead them to buy-in to our beliefs/opinions
afterwards.
Many of us may be concerned that if we do a favour for
someone, the favour we receive in turn might not be as valuable
as the one we gave, therefore representing a loss, however the
investigation into favours shows that when we help others,
providing we have them reciprocate the favour early on, i.e.
immediately after, they will deliver a favour of significant value.
Psychologist Dennis Regan did a study to discover whether the
favour people do in reciprocal is greater of lesser than the initial
favour gave to a stranger; He gave a small can of coke to people
in a venue, and then later on offered these individuals raffle
tickets, he found the ones who received a can of coke compared
to the ones who didn't bought twice as many raffle tickets
despite the raffle tickets costing significantly more than the price
of a can of coke which they didn't ask for.
However despite there been consistent research showing that the
favours we can receive are significantly larger than the ones we
give out, many of us may recognize from personal experience
that often we feel that we give more than we typically get. This
may be for several reasons, for example the persuasive use of
favours has been shown to work best for people who are
strangers, This might be because its been shown that when the
person the favour exchange occurs with suspects that you have
an ulterior motive for engaging in the procedure that this tactic
is shown to be ineffective.(D. T. Regan: 1971) and unless you
quickly move in for a favour in reciprocal people typically forget
the benefit you provided to their life bared any significance.
As the research above shows if people suspect that there is an
ulterior motive for the favour then the use of this tactic becomes
ineffective, however the benefits of such an activity isn't purely
that people will more easily succumb to your requests, its been
shown by various researchers than when people commit a
favour for you it increases how highly they think of you, even if
you hadn't committed any favour for them.
When looking at the relevant research we discover one study by
Psychologists Jecker, J. and Landy, D. (1969) when testing
whether favour exchange increases your likeability they found
that participants in their study who won money from an
experimenter were willing to give back the money to the
experimenter later on when he explained that he ran out of
money, those people who did this rated the experimenter as
much more likeable than the control group.
Asking for a favour might seem like a lot to ask of someone who
is a complete stranger to us, but the research shows that when
people do a favour for you they nearly always rate that person
much more likeable than they would rate someone else who
didn't ask for a favour, its the general consensus within the
seduction community that people value the effort they have put
into a relationship, and therefore want to nurture and protect the
time and energy they have invested, in the community often
phrased as Time + Effort = Love. Meaning that when you put
time and effort into something, whether it's a hobby, art, or a
person you begin falling in love with that thing because of the
effort you put in. “The greater the number of hoops someone has
to jump through, the greater their commitment to the cause”
Dutton, K.( 2010)
Building commitment
When looking at how best to persuade people much of the
research suggests that once you get people even slightly
emotionally, intellectually or imaginatively involved in a
movement then its very difficult for them not to accept further
participation into this brand. For example, according to Kevin
Dutton (2010) successful retail salesman often ask for numerous
forms of identity check before going through the details of a
product. By them having you get out multiple forms of ID it
makes the participant more committed to engaging the in the
sales process with you, and therefore much more likely to buy!
We've probably all had the experience of either being a child or
witnessing a child use the following persuasive phrase in order
to distance their allocated bedtime, When a child bargains for
their bedtime the communication typically follows the same
pattern, The Parent says “you have to go bed now” Child
responds “Oh just a little bit longer”. Many members of the
seduction community refer to this as 'staying in your frame' or
maintaining an alpha frame an example of this might be when a
seducer taking a girl to another location, Girl “Where are we
going, I need to go home soon” Guy “Just a little bit longer, I
want to show you something”.
In various research studies investigating this its been shown that
by having people get involved into a movement even slightly,
later on makes them to commit to a lot more than they would
have otherwise planned to commit i.e. simply pointing out to
people that even a small offering/favour on someone's part
would be acceptable and worthwhile is likely to be an effective
strategy for getting people on-board to eventually commit to the
entire activity.
A Schroeder's (1976) study that shows this, research assistants
asked for donations from homeowners for the American cancer
society, they asked the residents 'would you be willing to help
by giving a donation?' for half of the residents the request ended
there, for the other half the research assistant added, 'even a
penny would help' the study showed that in the second example
nearly double the people decided to participate and donate
money to the charity, 50% of people compared with 26.8%
All the research here has offered evidence that by first providing
a gift, service or favour for someone we create a social-obligation
in the recipient to reciprocate, or even better getting the
individual to engage in a favour on your behalf we make you
more likeable and increase the level of persuasiveness you have.
There is something to be said about favours having a capacity to
build relationships with people, because; if you do a favour for a
stranger ,its likely they would want to return the favour, or vice
versa therefore allowing the relationship to continue and
progress. Although it might require a deal of bravery to speak to
people on this level who you barely know, particularly someone
who you would like to build a relationship with, the research
shows that it nearly always pays off to make an effort and ask or
give a favour to this person.
It is often a strange phenomenon going in a library to notice that
everyone in silent, and the only sounds you can hear are people
turning pages of books, or typing. Or perhaps you've been on
the underground during the 8am rush hour and realised how
difficult it seems to talk to someone because everyone's heads
are buried in newspapers or whatever work they are planning
for the day. Different social situations seem to have unwritten
rules, and almost automatically we seem to find ourselves
obeying these rules without anyone having told us what they
are.
We all take a great deal of cues from our external environment
that later on cause us to build internal representations in terms
of thoughts inside our minds, although events in the external
environment might be entirely random and unconnected, for the
purpose of 'creating rules' to build a useful way to interpret the
world. In persuasion this is often referred to as Social Proof or
Norm.
For different circumstances humans seem to be magnetically
attracted to conforming to the normal behaviour. When it’s a
new scenario we are particularly hypersensitive to cues as to
how to act. It’s suspected by some researchers that this is an
evolutionary function to keep us safe.
In Aarts, H. And A Dijksterhuis's (2003) study to test the
effectiveness of indicating social norms to influence behaviour in
people Psychologists changed the signs around a hotel in order
to cause people to reuse their towels to cut down on hotel
expenses in cleaning the towels, it was shown that “When a sign
indicated that 95% of hotel users reused their towels” this caused
26% more people to reuse their towels, when compared against a
more environmentally conscious reason for why to reuse towels.
In a similar study that clearly stated that message was
“Everyone who has stayed in this room has reused their towels =
)” the result were that nearly everyone reused their towels.
Our tendency to assume an action or thought is correct if others
have it, is exploited in a variety of settings. Bartenders often
“salt” their tip jars with a few pound coins and notes at the
beginning of the evening in order to simulate tips left by prior
customers and to give the impression that tipping is proper
barroom behavior. Church users sometimes prime collection
baskets, in order to show others that this is acceptable behavior.
The effectiveness of a norm increases even more so when you
more closely allocate messages based on characteristics i.e.
situational similarities with the audience your speaking to, the
closer the commonality between marketing and the audience its
attempting to reach, the higher its effectiveness.
Pacing and leading: Building Compliance.
In Neuro-Linguistic programming the concept of stating
information about someone that they immediately recognize to
be true, and then connecting this with information you wish for
that individual to accept is true is called Pacing and leading The
assumption is that if you say “Hey, you look like you'll be good
at this, wait before we start, could I borrow your phone I just
need to phone my friend” then the participant is more likely to
respond to your request.
The saying goes, the best way to ride a horse is in the direction
that the horse is going. Pacing and leading is based around
Rapport which was developed from the french word, which
refers to the special relationship a rider and its horse have.
Robert Caldini (p71) states “Only by first aligning yourself with
the direction of the horse is it possible to then slowly and
deliberately steer it where you'd like to go. Simply trying to pull
the horse in the desired direction immediately will just wear you
out and probably just upset the horse in the process”.
Young, full of energy, partying every night, I was 17. In a
nightclub near where I had grown up. I had just read as far in
the book on NLP persuasion called Tranceformations by Bandler
& Grinder, up to where it suggests using connectives. To use
pacing and leading to win people round to your beliefs.
The method it suggests is to use the word “As” that's all I
needed to know. I marched down to the nightclub armed only
with the phrase “As”. I told a girl that she would feel really
excited, and then suggested that as she felt excited she would
feel obsessed with me. Although I had a great deal of success
with girls during those years, I barely felt a girl was obsessed
with me enough that I would actually feel the same in return for
them. I ended up been in a relationship with that girl for years.
Commonality: Situational Openers, Finding a
shared moment.
A common recommendation by seduction coaches, such as Ross
Jeffries and by a well recognized hypnosis company called Head
Hacking is the framework to use a compliment, introduction and
then a question (CIQ) when approaching people. Its
recommended usage, goes something like the following; “Hey
that's a great jacket, I'm the performer here tonight, would you
like to see some magic”. This technique can be noticed in the
seduction community as situational openers.
It’s important to maintain eye contact and deliver
communication in the same tone and state that the message is
intended, if you are describing something fun then it’s important
to come across as if your fun.
The concept of CIQ, is another technique that relies on pacing
someones reality, (i.e. sharing commonality with them) before
leading them. That way your suggestion is perceived as related
to their sense of utility in the world, and they are likely to take
the message on-board.
Through implying that a your similar, to someone, even
seemingly irrelevant matters such as “Its hot in here”, “I'm
drinking the same drink as you”, “I've got that watch” has a
powerful effect, “The similarity of others to us plays an
important role in determining how we see the correctness of an
action; the social validation rule for compliance can be stated as
follows; one should be more willing to comply with a request or
behavior if it is consistent with what similar others are thinking
or doing.” (Brock, Green: 2005, p150)
Further evidence of this could be sort from a study by Garner, R.
(2005) where a manager sent out requests to its work force, 75%
of people who received the letter with a post-it-note attached
performed the action required, whereas only 36% did when
there was no hand-written message specifically requesting them.
This shows that people recognize an extra-effort and a personal
touch that directly recognizes them as a personal with unique
needs.
If we look at celebrities like Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake,
Jonny Depp or Megan Fox we can see the effect that delivering a
lifestyle that portrays character and attitude has to draw people
in. Life can often be a popularity contest where instead of the
quality or benefit that a particular individual really offers, if
people want to be you, then they tend to copy you in order to
achieve the benefits that your lifestyle seems to achieve.
A great deal of persuasion research has shown that to be more
persuasive we actually have to be more likeable, this might be a
different experience from what many of us believe, as often
persuasion can be confused with 'forcing', 'arguing' etc.
If we think about the personalities descriptions of Cult-leaders
Con-men, seducers, successful magicians, and successful
salesmen; all have something in common!
All of their agents and audiences who fell into their beliefs, they
actually liked them! All of these very different careerists are
always described as 'Charismatic' and likable figures.
This shows that villainous and successful men of society and
share the common goal of becoming more likable. They are all
successful at convincing others to do and believe what they
suggest.
By doing the things that cause people to like you, then you will
find strangers will be more willing to listen to you and take on-
board your ideas. Likeability is easily created if you present
yourself as having;
• Genuine interest in people
• giving sincere compliments
• matching body language + speech
• appearing modest
• being generous with time and skills
• using eye contact
By using these techniques you'll find people will feel loyalty
towards the relationship. The key to winning other people over
to our opinions often comes down to being hand in hand with
how socially valuable your perceived and how much value you
seem able to create for the audience your attempting to engage.
Qualities that increase your likeability have been covered in the
attraction section, for example; looking people in the eye,
standing up straight, smiling, speaking in positive language,
having an excited energy, and speaking about topics that are
original and not the average, finding the commonality between
you and your audience and standing out often means breaking
social boundaries and rules and coming across as a bit of a
outlaw.
It may be a difficult concept to talk about creating commonality
and connecting with people when at the same time you are
referring to building a framework where your almost a separate
figure, someone with power, therefore part of motivating people
to be interested in the things you say and then follow your
suggestions and recommendations is to build a tribe of loyal
participants who admire your leadership. Maintaining the
power balance and asserting your authority and keeping your
crowd always wanting more is key to maintaining the demand
for your contributions and thus peoples desire to mimic you.
Creating Value
This effect of people wanting something that's in demand, but
noticeably in short supply is a good example of how one item is
considered more valuable than another, we later discuss the
origins of value and wealth as discussed by Philosopher &
Economist Adam Smith however the concept of supply and
demand is a central theme in what's becoming a common
psychological approach to persuasion.
Snowboarding, surfing, running are all fun sporting activities!
We can go and take an afternoon to ourselves and enjoy these
sports.. we might just be nicely playing about thinking we are
doing really well! Until we notice someone else is doing tricks
that we can't do?!
Magicians, are constantly looking for the next best trick, to
outsmart other magicians.... they don't want to be second best.
We could easily spend an afternoon running around a sports
track, but if you think back to sports day at school, how fast you
ran to try and beat your peers to get the prize.
This shows us that, it is not just potential reward that motivates
people to participate in a activity, but the rush to beat other
players at receiving the reward! This competitive effect, could be
described as “people are motivated more by losing out, than by
gaining something” because losing out accounts for the
additional social effect.
Research by R. Cialdini (2007) supports this, when a sign
indicated that the majority of people stole rare wood from a
forest, the amount of thefts of rare wood increased by 7.92%. The
sign read “Your heritage is being vandalised every day by theft
losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at
a time”. When it seems like everyone is doing an activity,
suddenly everyone wants to do it. The sign that indicated lots of
people stole wood, actually caused triple the number of people
to steal wood compared to after the sign was removed.
A case study by a graduate student retold this story, he said he
had taken his girlfriend to the park who was the most honest
woman he had ever met, the moment she read the sign she said
“we best take some wood before there's none left”
There are plenty of examples of this; Advertisers love to inform
us that their product is the “fastest growing” or “Best Selling”
because they do not have to convince us directly that their
product is good; they only need to say that many others think so,
which seems like sufficient proof Brock, Green: (2005,:150)
From this it seems we take a great deal of cues from our
environment, as what to what activities to participate in new
scenarios. These cues may be, a directed message towards us,
social proof from the majority doing the activity, someone doing
the activity on us and then us reciprocating, or someone
reassuring us that it's the right thing to do because we like and
trust them.
Chill out: intelligent leadership
But how do we know the activities we pursue add value to our
life? And what would happen if the activities we pursued
weren't the best opportunity for us? Its believed by many
researchers that, personality is a sense of wholeness. That is to
say, we are a network of beliefs, memories, ideas etc that all are
mutually supportive, from this our character (whole) is formed.
It’s believed by research psychologists Silberman (2005) and
Kehr (2003), that conflicting ambitions, activities, and ideas lead
to personality conflicts, that cause psychological distress such as
anxiety. “Discrepancies between the general beliefs and goals or
strivings that compose the meaning systems of individuals…
lead to rumination”
The difficulty in life is, as its unpredictable, which activities we
participate in will generate further sense of whole. And which
projects will fail, crash and burn or conflict with our sense of self
thus creating psychological worry.
Winston Churchill famously said that “he had plenty of worries
in his life, most of which never happened”, What could be noted
is that individuals do seem to have a need to have a consistent
reality, and that when life events occur that are somewhat
unanticipated they seem to cause conflicts between personality
parts
Its been shown that goal pursuits; and actually participating in
action-orientated activities leads to increased psychological
health; “The autonomous regulation of goal pursuits is
associated with better performance and mental health...”
therefore by referring to peoples sense of self pursuit and then
using this as a pace we are likely to get them to follow our
suggestions, also such individuals should feel an increased
affiliation with you as you seem to offer them benefits and
therefore they'll seek to reciprocate the favour.
This desperate need to engage in projects/activities that seem to
reinforce an individual’s sense of self concept, is something that
can easily be used to benefit the persuaders ambitions, and
through the agent engaging in the activities you set they can 'feel
' as if their life-needs are been met and they are avoiding
personality inconsistency.
Through intelligent leadership we offer people a sense of
purpose, we get them involved into our tribes and along our
paths and although they are taking on-board our beliefs they are
learning about a way of life they sense might benefit them.
offering people clarity in pursuit we temporarily allow them to,
avoid “increased rumination about (their failure to achieve a
clear pursuit)... and thus avoid psychological distress”
associated with such projects (Sheldon, Elliot: 1999)
People have a constant desire to remain consistent with their
sense of consistency and purpose, by recognizing their unique
identities and suggesting that the persuasive message we are
illustrating benefits them to overcome their concerns then we
can expect the percentage of individuals responding to our
suggestions to increase significantly.
How to Hypnotize
Ok, so hypnosis. At least the way I define it is about actually
going after a hypnotic phenomenon and achieving it. What we
explain throughout this book is that it’s really important to go
for kinaesthetic phenomena as it provides a learning process
where the subject can come to understand their own
responsiveness as they work with a hypnotist.
Therefore we are going to teach you the ways to use the
following routines before we go into more detail about how
hypnosis works, and the important structure that you should
consider when building your routines.
I’ve never really read many other hypnosis books, the truth is
there isn’t’ really many books on hypnosis for this kind of thing.
Street Hypnosis is really just a new buzzword that is in the
public domain with thousands of hypnotists around the world
describing themselves as that and seeming to learn hypnosis
from watching one another’s YouTube videos or attending a
training course such as the course we run at
www.streethypnotism.com
Steeple fingers
Magnetic hands
Hand clasp
Press hands
Eye lock
Stiff arm
Hand stuck to table
Making a subject unable to speak
Feet stuck to the floor
Stuck to your chair
Hand stuck to the head
Handshakes
Arm levitation
And more.
So we are going to dedicate time to those procedures. We will
also explain in detail the way in which you should approach a
group of people when you are going to perform hypnosis on
them.
I need to point out that you don’t necessary need to announce
yourself as a hypnotist in order to have hypnotic phenomena
occur in your participants. As we have already covered nothing
you’re doing is really not explained in terms of cognitive
neuroscience, so really just just standard psychology persuasion
techniques just used in a particular way to which hypnotists
seem to understand.
The hypnosis we are going to specialize in for the purpose of this
text book is the hypnosis that I’ve been working on developing
for nearly the last ten years and that’s something we call ‘Street
Hypnosis’.
One of the most complex things about getting your hypnosis
right is really about introduce yourself in a likeable manner and
delivering a compelling pre talk.
The pre talk is a conversation about hypnosis that should aim to
alleviate the misconceptions from the participants.
Many misconceptions that a subject has about hypnosis can
really interfere with the way they listen and engage with the
hypnotist and therefore it’s important you need to have your
subject concentrate so you can show them something interesting.
Sometimes by actually avoiding calling yourself a hypnotist you
can avoid the hassle of having to deal with all the
misconceptions of the hypnotic subject in response to you.
I know you need an approach, you’re thinking “what am I going
to say when I go over to a group to hypnotize them” So I’m
going to give you the words that you should use.
There’s various lines you can say to people when you begin to
offer that you’re going to do something “ I want to show you
something using your mind?”, “Can I show you something
interesting?”, “I want to show you something about
psychology..” any of these approaches are good. It’s also a good
idea to present hypnosis as part of a magic trick but to do the
hypnosis without mentioning that it is explicitly hypnosis.
So the first routine you’re going to perform is.
Ok I know what you’re thinking “where do I begin?” you want
to learn the real hypnosis right?
Well, I always pretty much nearly always start with kinaesthetic
phenomena… either I make a subject have their hand stuck to
something such as a table, or their hands stuck together so they
are clasped (interlocked fingers) or pressed together, or I have
the subject have their hand stuck to my hand from a handshake.
These make up 95% of my opening routines, maybe even a
higher percentage. The only exception to this is when I skip
these routines and go straight for the end result – the hypnotic
phenomena I want the subject to finally experience.
That’s right you heard me correct – you don’t actually need to
perform these kinaesthetic phenomena in order to get the final
result you seek.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Then why on earth are you
teaching me kinaesthetic phenomena”.
I can list some good reasons. Making a hypnosis subject stuck to
the floor, or stuck to you, or stuck to a chair or whatever…
makes them have to listen to you, because you’ve put them in
the predicament of being stuck in that position and not been able
to work out how to get out of it.
I can give you another good example why kinaesthetic
phenomena are actually amazing. It’s fantastic because the
hypnosis subject can actually see the phenomena happening.
They can see and feel their hand been stuck to someone and then
they can play with that reality, they can pull on that hand, they
can complain how they are stuck to something etc.
By having the subject ‘see’ or ‘watch’ the phenomena of
becoming stuck to something happen then you’ve actually really
taught the subject how they can actually be out of control, how
you’re able to somehow influence their mind.
By having a subject focus on the fact that you can influence their
mind, kind of hypnotizes them so they believe that you can only
do that, and that they can’t do anything else other than listen to
you.
This is actually the formula for having a great hypnotic subject
out of almost about anyone you meet.
Where did I learn about the power of kinaesthetic phenomena?
Well other than the Derren Brown radio 1 interview that I’ve
already cited one of the first books I ever bought about
performance hypnosis was “The New Encyclopaedia of Stage
Hypnotism” by Ormond McGill. (1996)
Actually the first time I ever performed hypnosis I told my
subject that they would experience pins and needles in their
arms and those pins and needles would move up as their body
goes stiff, and when that stiff feeling reached their head they
would fall asleep.
This was one of the weirdest most complex inductions I’ve ever
done and it’s strange to think it was the first time I attempted
hypnosis.
I don’t know where I got the idea that I could do that from
because at the time the only thing I had ever read was
Tranceformations by Bandler and Grinder which really was an
incredible book and I could do with reading it again.
Later on when I began writing a PDF with my friends on how to
hypnotize in 2004, I started collecting routines that I heard about,
and adding my own features into them, I remember much of my
thinking was influenced by the book by Ormond McGill (1996)
It’s a book full of routines and phenomena’s many of which my
routines have been inspired from there, but from other sources
to.
Steeple fingers, magnetic hands, and hand clasp are all routines
which I learnt from the Encyclopaedia of stage hypnotism.
I once saw a hypnotist called Freddy Jacquin perform a steeple
fingers into a hand clasp. I don’t know what his exact wording
was, although when I read through the encyclopaedia of stage
hypnotism again it kind of sounded like the steeple fingers and
the handclasp were supposed to be performed together, or could
be performed side by side one another.
Later when I read through The Encyclopaedia of Stage
Hypnotism (1996, p73) by Ormond McGill again I got excited
and started using the steeple fingers to hand clasp.
It’s a binary or die situation
I’ve mentioned before and I’ll say it again, I really didn’t like
hypnosis when I started it. Sure I thought the dream of being a
hypnotist sounded amazing, but the reality of the long boring
stage hypnosis inductions and even the phenomena such as arm
levitation or making a hypnosis subject laugh just seemed a bit
lame.
To me it always seemed obvious that a hypnotist’s job should be
to make people do stuff against their own will, that it should be
that the hypnotist is a kind of super hero who can make anyone
do anything and this provided a clear direction for my
experiments.
When I first went to hypnotize someone over text I didn’t know
that people would tell me that it was impossible, all that I knew
was that I couldn’t just do a routine where I made the hypnotic
subject on the other side of the internet’s arm rise up (arm
levitation) because this wouldn’t really prove that the subject
was hypnotized as I wouldn’t be sure if the subject just lifted up
their arm themselves because they weren’t sure if I was asking
them to lift it, or if it was moving up automatically.
I don’t think having their arm rise up would have felt like they
had no control over their arm, and therefore I thought the subject
would always interpret their position as “not being hypnotized”
which seemed to me that it would be useless then if I was going
to make the subject do something against their consent, because
their arm rising up by itself felt consensual.
So when I went on the internet and stepped into a chat to
hypnotize someone for the first time, the words that came out of
my typing fingers were Derren Brown’s radio 1 hand stuck to
the table into name amnesia suggestions.
In a book which you can find on my website I analyse many of
the old transcripts of conversations that I had when I first began
doing chat hypnosis in my early days.
On the website I compare the responsiveness from the language
I was using back then to screencast conversation recordings so
you can see in real time what I typed of hypnosis text sessions
that I have performed recently with the updated language that
you can find in this hypnosis book.
My goal for you reading this book is the same as the goal I
constantly have for myself. I want you to be able to get a strong
binary phenomena within maximum of two minutes of
interacting with a subject, I know there might seem like there is a
lot of detail in this book, but honestly you will quickly find that
really I’m only listing a small series of simple steps and a few
words and paragraphs to say in between those simple steps.
Hypnosis doesn’t have to be complicated I’m just trying to make
sure you understand everything that can go wrong so you know
how to do it right in the most difficult circumstances and believe
me hypnotizing in the streets across cultures around the world is
a difficult environment.
You might think that this book is full of a lot of information and
routines but I can get through all the information listed in this
book when interacting with a hypnosis subject probably in less
than 4 minutes.
I make up these silly games that I play with myself when I
hypnotize people, but honestly don’t copy me and do these
games you already have enough pressure on yourself.
Sometimes I press the timer button on my IPhone before I
approach a group and I have it count down from 30 seconds –
and I expect it to go off after I’ve got name amnesia.
This might sound hard, but honestly I think name amnesia is
actually quite an easy routine to achieve in that kind of length of
time.
I think now is a good opportunity to mention safety advice; one
of the reasons we don’t do sleep inductions in street hypnosis
despite all the hypnosis trainers out there trying to cash in on the
term and make people go out there and do their stage hypnosis
inductions on the street. Is because if a bouncer (security guard)
or police woman see’s that you’ve laid a subject out on the street
they are going to be extremely worried about the safety of their
customers. If you lay someone’s friend out on the floor, their
friends are going to be extremely worried as to why you’re going
this, and whether their friend is ok.
The natural reaction to you laying someone on the ground is that
someone is going to shout at you. Just don’t get subjects to close
their eyes in general. Other advice I have is that don’t get carried
away…. You see, in this first week I’m having you make a
hypnotic subject have their hands stuck
Together. I don’t mind you leaping ahead and doing name
amnesia or some other routine.
The problem is, just don’t do anything stupid… if you tell a
hypnotic subject they are on fire don’t be surprised if they strip
off all their clothes, don’t be surprised if they run and get the fire
extinguisher and set it off, don’t be surprised if they run out into
the road.. And get hit by a car. If you do a silly routine like that
and don’t handle it correctly you are going to get someone
killed. Sorry to be a scare monger. There’s a lot of stuff about the
legality of street hypnotists on the internet, particularly
information about myself and a handful of others. Hypnosis isn’t
illegal in most countries… the rumours you hear about it being
illegal is mostly nonsense, really you should ask a lawyer and
not me for legal advice.
If you’re not looking at information on a government website
then don’t trust the information. Largely the rule is, if you’re in
some states in Africa, or some states in the Middle East, and
you’re doing street hypnosis… then you do stand a chance of
going prison.
If you’re in the rest of the world such as England, United States,
Europe; I believe that although people might advise you against
street hypnosis… I believe it’s against your human rights not to
be able to express yourself in this manner.
However you need to remember that when you’re in a bar or a
nightclub you are on someone else’s property and you need to
abide by their rules else you are in fact trespassing. So the
number #1 rule is to be professional, be well spoken, be kind, be
nice, and sometimes smile. You don’t own people, and they
don’t own you. Please just keep your relationships at arm’s
length, its ok to talk to strangers but don’t suddenly expect to
become their best mate immediately out of it.
People can be a bit clingy, and honestly if someone comes up to
me and tries to be my mate… my number one reaction is to try
and get rid of them….As much as I spend my life with people, I
really need my own space, and we all do. So keep your
professionalism, and niceness at the forefront of your mind
because they are going to be your savours when people start to
overreact about your being in their venue.
With regards to those who are scared to approach strangers….
Just fully imagine the worst case scenario… suppose you got
punched in the back of the head, or suppose the bouncers got
you permanently banned from all the bars in the city. Those
things could happen… but I want you to realize that they won’t
happen, so stop worrying about a girl rejecting you, that’s really
the least of your worries.
Sometimes I get emails like “Vince how are you so brave, you
must have balls of steel?” I kid you not I’m the most scared little
man in the history of mankind… I’m afraid of everything… But
I’m also aware that I am going to die and I’ve got to do
something about it, I’ve got to live.
So let’s briefly look at the language that Ormond McGill (1996)
uses to make one arm of a hypnosis subject go up and the other
goes down.
"Now as you stand with your arms outstretched and your eyes
closed, imagine there is a heavy weight attached to your right
wrist, and that weight is so heavy it commences to pull your
right hand down, down towards the floor. The weight is so
heavy, down, down it pulls your arm.
Let your right arm move downward with the heaviness you
experience as you concentrate upon it. "Now think of your left
arm, and imagine there is a balloon filled with helium gas
fastened to your left wrist, and as the balloon rises into the air
your left arm follows it and moves up, up, up. Your left arm is so
light it rises up, up, up into the air."
You probably played games like this in school where you made
people’s arms move up, or you made someone feel really light
just by talking to them.
I know I played these games but I knew a few people at the time
who were into spiritualism and I guess that was the reason we
were playing the games… Which was silly really but kids just
pick up things they are bored all day and they just look for
anything to do that seems mildly interesting to occupy their
restless brains.
So the first routine that I’m going to have you learn is really the
one which you’re going to be performing the most if your
anything like me. That routine is ‘Steeple Fingers’ also known as
‘Extended Fingers’, Crankily Fingers & Magnetic fingers. There
is a great book that, Anthony Jacquin wrote called “Reality is
Plastic” (2008) where he details a few hypnosis routines; all of
which are well explained,
Ideomotor responses
What you are looking for when you begin hypnotizing someone
is for them to respond to your commands immediately and
literally, if I tell someone that their hands might begin to shake
then I expect to see their hands move slightly all by themselves,
if I tell someone there is magnets on their fingertips I expect to
see their fingers move in a way that resembles magnets pulling
those fingers together, I expect to see responses even though
they are responding to the physical sensation of those fingers
coming together because of the muscle tension.
It’s usually a sign of a good hypnotic subject is they instantly get
these kind of automatic muscular movements or shakes the
moment you start speaking to them, a fascinated, compliant or
somnambulist type subject will likely copy you, suck up to you,
be really nice to you, be a bit too keen to work with you and lots
of other things.. That way you know the subject is really
attentive, but don’t worry if the person you’re speaking to hasn’t
shown any of those signs yet all that means is that you need to
be more enthusiastic and encourage their attention and emotions
better.
Even when a subject is playing along, acting, confused or just
listening to me, or even in the pre talk these are vital
opportunities to understand whether the subject is picking up on
your suggestions or not.
A huge portion of the time hypnotic subjects might have
misinterpreted a phenomena you’ve suggested to them or
whatever reason they just aren’t feeling it or responding to it,
and it’s too easy to disregard them as not hypnotized or difficult
to hypnotize because they will tell you that they are not
hypnotizable, but simultaneously you should be looking to see if
they are responding to at least some of the things you’re saying.
A classic example of this is when you make a subject feel good
you might say “you feel really relaxed and great” and then a few
moments later you might notice that the subject seems to be
laughing, now to a new hypnotist it could be easy to make the
assumption that the reason for their laughing is that they are not
hypnotized.
One of the early moments in becoming a new hypnotist is really
realizing that subjects are always awake, they always have the
ability to communicate, and if they want that can kick, scream
and complain how they can’t be hypnotized how they aren’t
really feeling it and you can walk them through every hypnotic
routine on the list while they say it.
In Steeple Fingers when I’m asking someone to press their palms
together at the beginning of setting up the routine I’m saying
that and I’m expecting the subject to have just heard those few
words and as a result sincerely press their palms together, if they
casually in their own time decide to take their two hands and
put them out in a manner which seems like they are just “putting
out their two hands” but without following the further details of
your instructions, then you need to wonder why the subject is
not listening to you, or directly going against the very words you
are saying.
Don’t work with a subject who isn’t following your suggestions,
either repeat your instructions again and have them do it
properly or ditch the hypnosis subject for been unable to follow
basic instructions.
You don’t want to work with people who are incapable of
listening to you.
Arm Levitation
Let’s begin by having you practice arm levitation:
Now, arm levitation is pretty much a simple routine, all you
want someone to do is to rest their arm, or to have one arm left
out from your previous routine i.e. one of the two arms left from
after the magnetic hands.
Things you say is “I want you to imagine your arm is tied to
helium balloons and it’s going to [said with a little bit of
emphasis] move up into the sky all by itself as it raises up [bit of
emphasis] all the way now [2] all by itself [3] as if it’s got a mind
of its own, it just goes [higher and higher] and [lighter and
lighter] as if that arm just feels like and raises up.” Now you
might notice their arm might move up quickly or slowly, even
with a very good hypnotic subject what might be happening is
that they are merely experiencing the very fact that helium
balloons are rather weak – that might be the impression of some
people, I suspect for example that to lift your arm from helium
balloons you would need maybe 70 helium balloons.
Therefore the persons arm might just feel exactly how you’ve
suggested it to feel “as if a helium balloon has lifted it” so it’s
useful to move away from the emphasis the metaphor that the
helium balloon has provided and instead focusing on the fact
that “the arm is lifting all by itself, as quick as it wants” but
without sounding as if your saying “It’s going too slow please
can you make it quicker” it’s my experience trying lots of
different ways of hypnotizing that the moment you sound like
your begging the subject to be hypnotized – they experience
conscious decision over their actions and they suddenly will not
experience the phenomena you specify – which is my exact
criticism of using NLP style representation systems or another
variation of hypnotizing someone to hypnotize, because I believe
your offering the subject too much choice about how they get
hypnotized, It’s also why I dislike the phrase “all hypnosis is
self-hypnosis” because then hypnotic subjects struggle to see
how the phenomena they are experiencing is separated from
their own sense of conscious action.
When you’re doing arm levitation because of the length of time
it often takes it gives you a good opportunity to tell the subject
the right things to be experiencing, and how to treat hypnosis –
therefore assuming they are being deepened, or assuming that
the subject will now assume that all suggestions you deliver will
be carried out automatically as if a part of themselves if listening
and organising those behaviours on cue – so quickly they feel
out of control.
Now you might notice that the subjects arm begins to rise fairly
slowly, once again it’s important to always give the impression
that it is happening.. That you’re suggesting it to happen by
hypnosis and that it is just going to rise up by itself.
You might have a good hypnotic subject but still experience that
their arm seems to raise only slowly up; now you can never be
sure why that is, it might be because the subject isn’t really
feeling it, but more often than not it’s because your suggestions
that your saying is encouraging a slow arm lift.
If you imagine that your arm is being pulled by helium balloons
that drags it up into the air then you probably imagine
something very slow – it doesn’t encourage the impression of a
something powerful that makes the arm raise.
So you should be happy even if the arm seems to be moving
only very slowly, you always have the opportunity to say “that’s
right the arm is moving by itself” once you see that the arm is
indeed significantly moving. Here is a selection of words you
could say when you’re making someone’s arm rise up.
“That arm is tied to helium balloons, it’s getting lighter and
lighter as if it’s pulled up by a wire it’s going to float up into the
sky all by itself now, as it moves up all by itself.”
Now sometimes when you’re hypnotizing someone you need to
find opportunities to say something else other than how the arm
is going to move by itself, else you can start to sound rather
repetitive.
Times like this are a good opportunity for deepening which will
shall cover in one of the sections below.
Make their eyes stuck together
So here is a routine that made a girl I once did it on also cry.
Some young girls really get scared by not been in control, god
that’s a judgemental thing to say. Ok I don’t mean to say that.
What I mean to say is that if you go up to someone and you
make it so they can’t open their eyes anymore they tend to get a
little bit scared.
Because they feel completely out of control, this might be bad in
the perspective of the hypnotic subject but it’s really quite
essential for us as hypnotists to make our subjects feel like they
are substantially under our influence and the reasons for why
this is important is something that we will discuss in greater
detail further on in this book.
This is the script I use to make someone’s eyes stuck closed, the
language about making the subject look towards the ceiling was
something I heard on an MP3 recording by a hypnotist called
David Caloff in about 2005.
[script] “[1]]imagine there is a window in the top of your head
and [2] I want you to look up with your eyes closed and [3] focus
on seeing if you can see through the spot and [4] imagine you’re
seeing the ceiling (or sky) above you and as you keep doing that
you realize that [4] your eye lids feel heavy, so heavy they [5]
feel almost stuck, so stuck in fact as you look up through that
window your eyes are stuck, and you can’t remember how to
open them.[6]and this slightly makes you panic, but” to quickly
analyse the suggestions.
The structure I’ve just used here [1] is to set the context of the
experiment and in a way is a guise or distraction to have it make
logical sense that you have their eyes roll up to look through that
window – it should be noted it’s difficult to open your eyelids
when your eyes are rolled back because of the shape of the
eyeballs. [2] Is a clear instruction to have them look up whether
they have done so already or not [3] this is a suggestion to
concentrate and focus assuming they are not doing so already,
just saying that to have them continue looking at that spot. [4]
it’s a fact their eyelids will feel kind of heavy, I’m almost asking
them to check if they are heavy, or to realize the feeling inside of
themselves that their eyes feel heavy, I repeat the heavy
sentiment again as a suggestion for heaviness beyond the
original implication – I progressed or stretched the feeling
further than its original outline. [5] I’ve paced the feeling of
heaviness to stuck-ness, I’ve compared the two, or said the two
are equal that heaviness’s = stuck-ness which isn’t necessarily
true but now it sounds true, once again I make that statement go
further with “SO STUCK that,” and then [6] I confirm this
feeling with a bit of panic, I’m telling them the emotion to feel
before they check whether they are stuck, and as they find that
fearful emotion they’ll also check their eyes are stuck under the
frame of that emotion – which implies the result that their eyes
are stuck and they are genuinely concerned.
In the routine for the ‘Eye lock’ the logic was good and sensible
and it produced the final result of the person feeling their eyes
are stuck, now usually when I began out in hypnosis I would
follow their eyes been stuck with “the reason your eyes are stuck
is because when I say the word sleep, you go deep asleep, your
body just relaxes and you feel like your deeply asleep, as I say
[emphasis] SLEEP, now”, and then I would go into deepening
(suggestions that imply the person is becoming more and more
hypnotized) “as you go deepener now and follow exactly what I
say, it’s like your body and mind carry out all the behaviours I
specify as if they happen all by themselves.”
Therefore the following statements in the pattern-handshake
induction should try and achieve something like the level of
precision that the eye-lock to sleeping statements and deepening
statements delivers.
Hand Stuck to the table.
Hand stuck to the table is really one of my favourite hypnosis
routines; something about it just seems so simple and beautiful.
I’ve done magic tricks where I’ve made someone’s hand stuck to
the table as part of the trick and the person has been absolutely
convinced that I must have put something on the table that has
suddenly made their hand stuck to it.
I’ve even been on a date with a girl who doesn’t know I’m a
hypnotist and while at the date I’ve had her place her hand on
the table and then its subsequently been stuck and she’s been
really concerned and worried as to why her hand is stuck.
You can perform hypnosis just as easily whether you mention
you’re a hypnotist or not, the key is you just have to ask your
participant to concentrate and listen for a moment and follow
your instructions.
You could frame this as a psychological experiment or you could
just have them begin following your instructions for no reason in
particular, providing they do it then it doesn’t matter why they
press their hand on the table just as long as they do.
So I used to make all the mistakes about having someone
“imagine there is superglue on your hand, and it’s heating up
and that hand is sticking to the table as if it’s becoming tightly
stuck and in a moment you will try and lift that but realize your
unable it just presses down and is completely stuck.”
However I don’t use any language like that before, nor the
structure of it. I spend a long time making sure a hypnosis
subject really consciously follows what I need them to follow
when I stick their hand to the table.
And then I have their hand press down, and then I will start to
have them begin practicing trying to move their hand, then I will
have them suddenly realize their hand is stuck and offer them
the chance to lift it.
Let’s look at some of the language that Ormond McGill (1995) in
the Encyclopaedia of Stage hypnotism recommends us to use
He states to use the suggestions “You are very relaxed and
comfortable, with a feeling of heaviness throughout your body.
I would like you now to think about your left arm and hand.
Pay close attention to them. They feel numb and heavy, very
heavy.... How heavy your left hand feels.... Even as you think
about how heavy it is, it grows heavier and heavier.... Your left
arm is getting heavier.... Heavy.... Heavy.... Your hand is
getting heavier, very heavy, as though it were being pressed
against its resting place. You might like to find out a little later
how heavy your hand is.... It seems much too heavy to move....
But in spite of being so heavy, maybe you can move it a little,
but maybe it is too heavy even for that.... Why don't you see
how heavy it is.... Just try to lift your hand up.... Just
try....”(p30)
So when I just meet a hypnotic subject and I’m going to perform
the hand stuck to the table on them
I typically place my hand on the table and I begin pressing my
hand down onto the table and I tell the subject “just press your
hand into the table” I’m hoping that because I’ve demonstrated
what I expect the subject do by pressing my own hand into the
table and acting as if it’s kind of tense then it will cause them to
press in a similar manner.
One of the most important things is the way they press their
hand down. I tell them to press their hand down. The way I have
them press is like I’ll have them press their hand down and their
elbow up, putting their arm almost directly straight down onto
the table. Thereby making it difficult for them to directly lift the
hand up if they tried because all their body weight would be
pressing that hand down.
The other way that I can set them up for the way they need to
press their hand down is to have their hand flat on the table and
have them pull their hand back so their forearm is out stretched,
but their elbow goes back 4 inches behind their back. If that
makes any sense, I have to admit it is difficult to explain what
you need to do over text… I’m here writing this down and I’m
doing all the hand movements and trying to explain what you
need to do, but this one with the forearm the general rule is just
to have the subject pull their forearm and elbow as far back as it
will go, then this means they haven’t got any more muscular
room to pull back their arm any further without either them
moving their body position or their shoulder coming out of their
socket.
A person is by definition hypnotized when “you deliver a
suggestion for a result, but simultaneously deliver a suggestion
for the opposite” and they respond to both.
For example I could make someone's hand heavy and it would
feel heavy, and the subject may not realize that their hand is so
heavy that its “kind of stuck to the table” but because they never
check whether it’s so heavy they can’t lift it, then you could
never by definition say their hand is stuck and thereby claim that
they are experiencing a hypnotic phenomena and thus
hypnotized. Whereas if I deliver the suggestions [for example
in the following script for hand stick]
“focus on that hand pressing into the table, as you press that
hand into the table you realize it starts feeling tense and almost
pressing itself so much, as if that’s all it can do and keeps on
pressing, keeps on pressing and you have no idea but you can’t;
even move it slightly it’s just stuck there all by itself, that’s all it
can do and
You can’t work it out” the first half of my suggestion for hand
stuck to the table in
Thus particular wording, never made it clear that the end result
would be that the subject will be unable to move their hand from
the table, I didn’t let the subject know that would happen until I
was sufficiently happy that the muscular response in the hand
would regularly rehearse pressing to the table as the easiest
muscular expression.
Then when I feel that priming has been achieved I switch all my
suggestions onto what will happen if they were try to test
whether that hand was stuck – thereby revealing my intentions
“to make their hand stuck to the table” and thus immediately
opening the line of opportunity for the subject to potentially
“resist” or “check” that their hand is stuck but I want to take that
response into account in my suggestions and give them clear
instructions for what to experience whenever they check.
By having the subject experience the ‘stuckness’ or the lack of
control over their own mind then I have almost suggested
someone into experiencing dissociation from themselves – I’ve
hypnotized someone to recognize their own normal state of
being out of control, and thereby the subject may assume this is
always the case for the rest of the suggestions I deliver following
this.
What we had to do in this section is just briefly cover hypnosis,
because we cognize that many of the people reading this book
might be hypnotists already many also might have wanted to
read this book for all kinds of reasons, and in order for them to
understand all the concepts talked about in this book.
You should really just try to find a subject (a person) and just ask
them to close their eyes and seat still for a moment, and just try
to make their arm levitate by talking in language that assumes
the arm is going to go up. It’s not as hard as you might think if
you’ve never done it, it’s not impossible or difficult and it’s not
different to being able to do the ‘real hypnosis’ like making
someone forget their name, its very similar… trust me if you can
make someone’s arm raise up, you can make someone forget
their name it’s just a strategy.
This text could be viewed as an explanation into how to make
your hypnosis much more advanced if you’re a hypnotist
already, or how to improve any of your social talents that you’ve
currently got… by analysing the information covered cross-
research between all these topic areas we discover general trends
and similarities, this allows us to build an entirely new
approach, one that doesn’t belong to any particular field, but
looks more like an economic or philosophic overarching theory.
In the next chapter we are going to begin to delve further into
the economics behind the approach, and then we will discover
all the ways in which it applies in a variety of fields.
Economics
Many may think? What use does economics have for solving the
problem of human rationality?
But Nobel Prize Winner Herbert Simon, states “Psychological
theories of ‘intuitive thinking cannot match the elegance and
precision of formal normative models of belief and choice…
rational models of psychology are unrealistic” (American
Economic Review, Vol 93, No. 5 (Dec, 2003). that is to say, he has
shown economics to be a more predictive a model of forecasting
human behaviour than other social sciences.
When we think of economics, we probably imagine financial
charts showing the rising price of the Chinese Yen compared
against the US dollar. Surprisingly economics is a social science;
because it studies how people interact with each other. It studies
how people interact in order to predict what people are likely to
do under different environments.
Economics is split into two fields, Macro -Economics that studies
big social trends like, why people get married, how many
children are people likely to have, what religion is likely to
become popular or decline, why certain government’s might be
elected or how many people will break the law next year.
And the study of microeconomics, which is essential to the
functioning of the broader macro-economic system.
At the core of any economic theory, there must be a theory of
human behavior, as Economies are ultimately made up of
people.
A theory of economic behaviour must answer questions such as,
how do we make economic decisions? What kinds of
information do we use? And, are there some types of decisions
that we are better or worse at making?” Eric Beinhocker
(2007:117) Micro- Economics is the study of the decisions
between relatively few players, which job opportunity are you
likely to take? Should a coca cola increase its prices etc.
Divorce, parenthood, revolutions education, crime and dancing
in the streets are all instances of people making choices and
paying prices for things they value social scientists want to
establish why we want certain things and avoid others. As we
want to know how people can negotiate each other, how one
individual can gain power over another, then the discussion
throughout the rest of this section will merely focus on
microeconomics.
Imagine a train pulls up, and you’re presented with 20 doors to
board the train through, what causes you to walk to the door
that you do? If you didn’t think about which door you chose
then what force caused you to enter that door? According to
economics, you will take the shortest route towards the nearest
door, because we do what's the least effort but offers the greatest
reward.
Microeconomics is the study of which decision your likely to
take, under various constraints, that Individuals try to achieve
their objectives given their limitations – Limited time, money,
and energy – that is to say they optimize. Tommasi,M. Ierulli, K.
Becker, G. (1995:1)
Obviously businesses and governments see it as important as
fine tuning this will increase the bank balances of those who use
such analysis. But when applied to the decisions of consumers,
or social groups it can be rather telling about what drives human
decision making.
To understand humans existence and therefore choice we should
take a look at the various discussions into what is a sensible
decision, and what is not. For this we can look to the study of
ethics or moral philosophy. Its concerned with what decisions
makes us good people and which decisions makes us bad,
for example; what makes certain individuals commit crimes,
what should be a crime and what shouldn’t, what’s a moral
activity and what’s not? These are common questions that stand
as the fundamentals of understanding human motivation.
For example, is it OK to steal someone else’s possessions if you
needed them more than the owner? What exactly do we believe
human nature to be? Do humans aim to hurt and kill each other
like they do during wars, or are people naturally good? By
solving exactly the motivation behind most human decisions,
will lead us to understand how people make decisions.
You've probably heard of Adam Smith, or know twenty of them,
other than being a common British name; it’s the name of the
man, whose diagram appears on the back of a British twenty
pound note,
What made him have the level of status the queen gets on the
British currency? He is widely considered the founder of
understanding what motivates humans to work together, or
work apart.
Smith was a professor at University of Glasgow and began
investigating what defines one activity as moral and another
not? And therefore what drives us to commit moral activities
over immoral ones. He left the Scottish university to teach the
children of royalty across the world about philosophy, however
he would often find himself bored and un-stimulated by the
teaching despite the higher pay. It was during this time that he
found an answer for why humans work together and why they
go to war.
Adam Smith initially struggled to understand how humans can
work together at all, he writes “How can a man who is interested
chiefly in himself make moral judgments that satisfy other
people? After all, each person stands at the center of his own
system, just as the sun stands at the center of the planets. Does
the sun care what the smaller plants think?”(p15, New ideas
from dead economists)
Another big contributor to the development of economics was
John Stuart Mill.
He was born to a family of philosophers in the 1770's. Mill's
family were made rich from pursuits organized by Jeremy
Bentham, he built prisons across the UK, and had to devise ways
to keep the prisoners happy. This led his family to be
particularly interested in how best to ensure human happiness,
both for the individual and then for the prisoners as a society.
His father and Jeremy Bentham devised that humans must do
what makes them happy! To do what made them most happy
would be the most moral activity they could do. Therefore, they
believed a moral decision would be, if something feels good we
should do it. They called their moral philosophy Utilitarianism.
However, young budding UK Parliament-man John Stuart Mill
noticed flaw in this, what if an activity that makes one person
happy, makes everyone else unhappy. For example we could
consider a case of paedophiles taking great pleasure in an
activity, whereas the rest of society becomes upset about its
occurrence.
He believed a much more sensible action would be one, where
the greatest number of people is made happy, minus the
unhappy people, over the lost potential other activities that
could have been selected instead. To select the potential activity
that has the highest happiness score. This became known as Rule
Utilitarianism “The Maximum amount of happiness for the
maximum number of people, after all unhappiness deducted”.
This fitted with Adam Smith’s former work on humans being
motivated by higher utility.
Smith's book title was 'On the origins of value and the wealth of
nations' because he showed that people are driven by value
(minus losses through time & effort etc.) , and he defined value
to be down to a concept he dubbed, supply and demand.
He showed, that the final price of an good, depends on the level
of competition for the production of that good. How many
sellers are offering. How similar their offerings are. If the level of
competitiveness is high, then the price offered by producers will
eventually equal the cost in obtaining that material.
An example of a highly precious stone like Diamonds, represents
value, its value is defined in the difficulty of acquiring the stone,
the rareness of such stones etc. but yet the clear recognizably of a
diamond when you see one. This means that it is by definition
valuable.
You may recognize the concept of supply and demand as we
have already covered in the persuasion section, when something
is known and useful to all, but yet difficult to acquire. It is
deemed valuable and therefore motivates people, as both Adam
Smith and John Stuart Mill had defined human motivations to be
those that benefited the self.
This idea that the activity that benefits us most after the loss of
things such as time and effort became known as self-interest or
expected utility and became central to understanding human
decision making.
It was noted, that this makes human motivation appear
ultimately selfish, whereas we are all familiar with human
emotions being rather complex, rather than just selfish, there is a
whole range of expression such as sadness, joy, anger, kindness
etc.
The motivations of human beings have always been put down to
rather selfish concerns by a plethora of social theorists, for
example Freud (1856-1939) proposed humans were motivated by
“self-preservation instincts” however when criticized as being
'vague' he went on to suggest 'food and sex' as primary
motivations' another founder of psychology William James
(1842-1910) proposed “the faculty of acting in such a way to
produce certain ends, without foresight of the end, or without
previous education in the performance”.
Many thinkers have criticized psychology and economics for
having such a bleak view as to portray humans as selfish, this
criticism caused Smith to issue a response; Which shows humans
to be inadvertently altruistic, he questions; If we are all so
selfish, then why are we not constantly at war stealing and
fighting in the streets with each other for bigger houses, faster
cars? Smith answers “If we all seek to promote our own self-
interest, we benefit society.
He neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows
how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own gain and
he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to
promote an end which was no part of his intention” Adam
Smith (1776:26)
One of his most famous quotations that people remember when
they think of Adam Smith “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but
from their regard to their own interest” Adam Smith (1776) This
is why economists are not denying the range of human emotion,
but instead claiming it’s the environment that creates the range
of human emotional experience.
As humans we look out of the window in the morning and
think… “What can I do that doesn’t cost me much than can make
me a profit?”
You then do these work activities that benefit society, and they
society pays you a reward, this is what the term free market
refers to, your ability to participate in however you choose to sell
and buy, at whatever price, whatever you want. For Example;
“Suppose a man called John, one morning admiring his wood
sculpture of a polar bear he once made... he has an idea, why
don't I make more wooden polar bears and sell them. He
thought the wood from Argentina only cost $66 and he can
probably sculpt one polar bear in 4 days, he decides to sell each
one for $197 bringing him a large profit. He makes 10 sculptures
and rents a shop to display his work to his neighbours, everyone
thinks the sculptures are hideous.. no one buys one”.
In this scenario, John did what he believed would be fun, and
what he wanted rather than what the people wanted and the
invisible hand considered the wood & his labour to be a waste of
valuable resources that could have been used better elsewhere in
society, thus he lost money.
The worth of a product to society, depends on how much it
further drives their productivity (i.e. their utility) if an item
means that individuals will be able to achieve more self interest
with lesser time, effort and resources then it will be considered
greater value to each individual.
Adam Smith says that this is “The real price of everything” The
way he calculates this is “What every thing really costs to the
man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring
it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired
it, and who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something
else, …..That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable
value of all things.”
He explained that human “self interest drives markets to form a
balance, a stable state where prices are agreed on, traders are
made, and the market clears.... That this balanced state could be
regarded as an equilibrium point that could be mathematically
calculated.... It was shown that if people attempt to maximize
their happiness in a world of individually differing utilities and
finite resources, they would inevitably trade their way to the
market equilibrium point” Eric Beinhocker (2007:35) That is to
say, any good or service has a mathematically predictable one
price. This is often known as the law of one price. Webfinance
(2012)
It’s not the amount of effort we put into creating something that
defines its value, but how much it is valued by others amongst
competition from other producers of that knowledge,
information, attitude or product. Markets self-regulate through
competition to naturally select the most beneficial option.
The diamond market is an example of one where its close to
monopolistic. Whereas in an example of a highly competitive
market, could be for example; the difficulty for people in highly
populated rural areas of Asia and Africa, who earn little more
for their labour than the cost of food in order to continue their
labour.
Because the difficulty for people to offer a different offering,
their time and effort is competed against the effort of their peers,
until their competition between each other pushes down their
revenue until their efforts become unprofitable. This is the
concept of a perfectly competitive market, “they exist when
every participant is a "price taker", and no participant influences
the price of the product it buys or sells.” - Wikipedia reference,
You may have played a game as a child called Monopoly in this
game you can own sections of the board that players travel
around and whoever lands on your ownership has to pay you
rent, as the game progresses and you take over more sections of
the board you can raise your prices, and charge people more
often.
Whereas, if you look at the example of individuals who are
super rich, for example Bill Gates, the former owner of
Microsoft, he resigned from Microsoft after it was discovered
that his company was making their software incompatible with
other computers and software providers, therefore locking in
audiences who have to continue upgrading their software and
paying Microsoft whatever fee they set, this is referred to as a
monopoly.
The concept of perfect competition and monopoly are polar
opposites, yet different degrees of each can be noticed in every
business and social context.
“The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest
which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free
competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken,
not upon every occasion, indeed, but for any considerable time
together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can
be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will
consent to give: the other is the lowest which the sellers can
commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their
business." Adam Smith (1976)
Microsoft got fined Billions of dollars! Because a complete
monopoly on a large scale is illegal in most economic areas... but
in the case of smaller monopolies they are supported by
governments in the forms of patents, intellectual property and
sole distribution rights. The government gives you these grants
so no one else can copy your ideas and sell them, allowing you
to make as much profit off them as you would like. i.e. they
kindly prevent you being attacked by competition so you can
build a business.
How competitive a situation is, i.e. how monopolistic versus
perfectly competitive it is, is highly studied by economists and
strategists. Michael Porter, is particularly famous for his analysis
into how companies can make their product offering be as
valuable as possible amongst competition.
Michael Porter, A Havard Business School Professor is world
renowned for business strategy. He is probably the most famous
business academic in the world. He has worked with all the big
corporations to devise their business strategies.
Originally an economist, made strategist, he pretty much
invented modern business strategy. While researching
economics, he believed that several functions could easily be
applied to business strategy; to essentially give companies, and
advantage over their competition, that could not be mimicked,
thereby creating a monopoly of supply to consumers.
Nearly every major corporate business plan in the world, is
inspired his book 'Competitive Advantage'.
It outlines the research that shows; When all products are
similar, the price between them is small because people aren't
willing to pay any greater value, for a compared product when
its so similar to a lower priced product. This is essentially a
perfectly-competitive-market.
The solution to this, he says is to develop a strategy that is a
Sustainable competitive advantage.
This creates a situation that turns your efforts into something
like a monopoly, granted by the uniqueness and the difficulty
for other competing firms or people to copy your competitive
business offering. He writes “Competitive advantage grows
fundamentally out of the value a firm is able to create for its
buyers that exceeds the firms cost of creating it. Value is what
buyers are willing to pay, and superior value stems from
providing – unique benefits that more than offset a higher price”
Porter, M.E. (1985)
Seth Godin, goes on to explain this in more radical terms, he
states “While driving through France a few years ago, my family
and I were enchanted by the hundreds of storybook cows
grazing in lovely pastures right next to the road. For dozens of
kilometers, we all gazed out the window, marveling at the
beauty. Then, within a few minutes, we started ignoring the
cows. The new cows were just like the old cows, and what was
once amazing was now common. Worse than common: It was
boring.
Cows, after you've seen them for a while, are boring. They may
be well-bred cows, Six Sigma cows, cows lit by a beautiful light,
but they are still boring. A Purple Cow, though: Now, that
would really stand out. The essence of the Purple Cow -- the
reason it would shine among a crowd of perfectly competent,
even undeniably excellent cows -- is that it would be remarkable.
Something remarkable is worth talking about, worth paying
attention to. Boring stuff quickly becomes invisible.” Godin, S.
(2003)
When a product is unique, and cannot be mimicked by other
competing firms, it can demand as high a price as it likes from
the consumer, because the value it creates, by solving needs that
can't be met by other producers, benefit the consumer
immensely. (There benefit is referred to as consumer surplus in
economics).
When you look around, you can see that every marketplace,
rewards innovation! When people see something that benefits
their utility, they pay attention. “The fastest growing churches
are the newest ones. The best-selling books are always the
surprise hits that come out of nowhere – Products and services
like those require initiative to produce” Seth Godin, (2008:31)
Leadership; can have this same dramatic effect. Everyone
looking to one person, yet inter-connected to each other. When
people look to leadership it causes them to constantly strive to
be higher up the pyramid, closer to the benefits that leaders
receive! Consumer surplus, is about achieving the greatest
benefit for the lowest cost. And if you can receive a relationship
with another firm or individual, that will result in greater utility.
(like being associated with a leader would) then you are likely to
become more successful and listened to by other members of the
tribe, thereby having some kind of mesmerizing effect.
We've on purposely left out any mathematics when covering
economics, and focused on the moral beliefs of the characters
who brought about economics. However, undoubtedly Math, is
a huge part of economics. Perhaps understandably “Many
people have a natural resistance to the idea that human
behaviour can be understood in a scientific way. After all, how
can we possibly understand something as complex and
unpredictable as the human mind, with its emotions, creativity,
imagination and ability to learn? How can we put loving, hating,
poetry-writing human beings into a mathematical formula.”
Beinhocker, E. (2007:115)
When something is shown to be true in math, its different to that
of when something is shown to be true in empirical scientific
research. Empirical research, is a pursuit, to gain a higher goal
'to uncover truth'. Its the believe that the truth is out there, and
that we can look under our microscopes and double-blind
studies, and we will have a closer understanding by analysing
the statistics, and what truth might look like for various bits of
knowledge. However, this means we can never see science
directly, we can never actually see what the higher universe of
logic-knowledge-truth actually looks like! We can only guess
based on the evidence we have.
Induction from empirical evidence has problems; A typical
inductivist position could be - “I've seen a lot of white swans,
therefore all swans are white' – is unsustainable. Induction
produces a conclusion based on a limited number of
observations which applies to a much larger number of possible
observations. The number of possible observations may even be
infinite. “If I see 1000 white swans, there is still the logical
possibility of an infinite number of the other, unobserved swans,
so the probability of the statement 'all swans are white' being
true is zero. Johnson, S. Jackson, R. Maslin, K. et al. (2005)
John Stuart Mill wrote “Though scientific research a valid
process, it is a fallible one, and fallible in very different degrees”
and that Logical Deduction, such from mathematics, “Gives us
no new knowledge; everything we conclude from a deduction
such as a syllogism is actually already known in the major
premise (e.g. if we know that all men are mortal, we also know
that Socrates is mortal; we don't need to prove it). He says of this
example 'the inference is finished when we have assered that all
men are mortal. What remains to be performed afterwards is
merely deciphering our own notes'. Johnson, S. Jackson, R.
Maslin, K. et al. (2005:149)
As John Stuart Mill Shows, like the premise, all men are mortal.
Math is a self contained system, where every function, relates to
every other function. When you show something in
mathematics, there is no doubt, no guesswork, it is knowledge-
truth-proven because it is already defined as part of the whole.
How can you relate the world of mathematics built in numbers,
to our concerns as human beings, how can it teach us anything
about our lives?
Smith, Bentham, and Mill. These early economists regarded
themselves as philosophers rather than scientists, and the
mathematics of the classic period is generally limited to a few
numerical examples and a bit of algebra, but nothing more
sophisticated Beinhocker, E. (2007:30) But later Walras wrote a
book called Elements in which he turned various economic rules
into demonstrative mathematical models; many of which were
later turned into mathematical proofs, this turned the field of
economics, into a math-based logic driven science.
A math proof, is something that is defined in pure logic alone, its
something that has been proven as of itself, as defined in its
wider system, The big bang is an example of this.
Stephen Hawkins solved the problem of how all matter came
into existence, the way he did this was to simply reverse the
already discovered equations of how matter disappeared out of
existence, which was calculated by predicting (built from
inductive-scientific-observation) the effects inside black holes.
Walras, L. (1954) was “convinced that if the equations of
differential calculus could capture the motions of planets and
atoms of the universe, these same mathematical techniques
could also capture the motion of human minds in the economy.“
Beinhocker: (2005:30). Warlas was right, because later in the 20th
century, mathematical models were built that merged Einstein's
General Relativity theory with Cosmology.
How do they do it? How do they build mathematical models,
that create a self-contained system. A good example of this, is
how Stephen Hawkins modelled the Big Bang. By using
computer models, we can plug mathematical variables into a
system, and see how the values of the micro-elements of
individual features, (like the value of gravity, or the decision of
agents) affects the whole. If the whole system, suddenly springs
into existence because of the right values being present, then this
demonstrates the math is correct.
The Big Bang can be shown to work, providing the right
numerical value for gravity, dark matter, the vibration of the
component part of atoms, and other variables are defined
Stephen Hawking (1989). The universe only works in computer
models, when precise numerical equations are present, and even
the slightest change to these values causes the universe simply
not to exist in our computer models.
This same processing of modeling values is been used to build
attempts at artificial intelligence. To create beings that exist in
the realm of compute code and mathematics. Various
evolutionary systems have been built inside computer models,
(For example Sugarscape. Epstein, J. Axtell, R. (1996) Such
systems entirely rely on numerical inter-related mathematics in
order to define the laws of agents, that forms a community, and
even further, macro-economic effects, from this initial defined
logic. Beinhocker, E. (2007) Using processes like these, its
possible, as least in theory to build a mathematical model of
human decision making. And to mathematically define, what
procedures cause people to believe certain information over
competing ideas Dawkins, R (1986:117)
Epstein and Axtell in 1996 wanted to see if simple agents in a
simple landscape could create something like an economy. By
defining the computer code of individual decision-based-
economic motivations of these agents, with the right set of
motivations, should cause interaction between them that spring
to life higher functions like macro-economics within the
computer model.
Thus each agent had a basic set of rules that it followed during
each turn of the game. These are limited foresight (the agent
could only perceive so far of the logical plane, and not envision a
higher logical plane), using this ability, it could determine within
its field of perception which location had the most energy
supply to contain its existence.
The agent moves to the square and consumes the energy. The
agent is credited by the amount of sugar eaten and debited by
the amount of sugar burned by its metabolism. If it eats too
much, it stores the energy up for the future. If it uses more
energy than it consumes. It falls out of existence. Beinhocker, E.
(2007:82)
The behaviour of the agents in sugarscape was, vastly, vastly
simpler than the behaviour of real people. The agents in
sugarscape could only eat, move, reproduce and trade –
nonetheless these are all real human activities that are
potentially relevant for understanding econmic phenomena.
There was nothing in sugarscape that real people do not or
cannot do. Beinhocker, E. (2007:116)
So how can mathematics solve questions such as What motivates
people to build relationships together rather than every man,
woman and child for themselves? Why do people get married,
live together and have children? This problem of 'allocating the
payoffs from cooperation' was mathematically solved by John
Nash (The film, A beautiful mind, Goldsman, A. Nasar, S. (2001),
was made about him) in a paper he wrote in 1950, that solved
game theory.
Imagine lots of separate software companies exist, that write
computer programs, they all decide to collectively increase their
prices, thereby forcing their customers to have no choice but to
pay the higher fee for their product, as they are all acting as one
firm it will be difficult for a small producer of software to
compete. A good example of this, is all the companies in the
world drilling for oil, collectively they join up and set a price per
barrel that they all have to sell oil at, according to most economic
areas this is illegal, but by doing this, all of these firms making
higher profits while still being technically separate companies.
People do the same, when we work together, we form
monopolistic forces, and we each end up with more benefit than
that we could have acquired separately. Rather than “2 + 2 = 4”
its a magic synergy that means “2 + 2 = 5”. There are four basic
sources of relationships between people, that cause both parties
to have higher utility than the sum of their parts;
(1)division of labour; you split the tasks that need to be done and
specialize in each area separately, therefore increasing
productivity (2) The homogeneity of people. Their different
needs and tastes create opportunities to trade for mutual benefit.
(Comparative Advantage) (3) increasing returns to scale i.e.
more people working for a prize increases the odds of achieving
it. (4) cooperation smooths out uncertainties over time. i.e. if one
person has a bad day where they don't provide benefit, the other
might be having a good day, and then they switch roles again.
Thereby constantly delivering benefit to one another.
Beinhocker, E. (2007)
“Evolution has steered us in a direction whereby we are
naturally inclined to be cooperative to capture the riches of non-
zero-sum games” that is to say, Evolution has programmed into
our mental software sophisticated, intuitive “Nash equilibrium
finders”. Beinhocker, E. (2007) Having more utility benefit, is a
motivating factor for all agents, such as humans... therefore we
are mathematically inclined to form relationships. Relationships
dramatically increase utility.
The reason we become attracted to someone in the first place, is
because they stick out as the most profitable choice compared to
the competition. As several research study shows, romantic
attraction is more dynamic...than just personality features... for
example commonality amongst partners, etc. the other
important element is strategic enterprise.
These Social Exchange & Equity models also outline the process
of mate selection and relationship formation resembles a
marketplace in which people attempt to maximize their rewards
and make social interaction as profitable as possible by
exchanging their own assets – beauty, health, intelligence, a
sense of humour, kindness, wealth, status and so on – for
desirable attributes in a partner. A person’s own value as a
potential partner is presumed to influence the extent to which he
or she is able to attract and retain a high value partner. Because
people seek the best possible value in a potential mate but are
constrained by their own value, this process results in the
pairing of individuals of roughly equal value.
We want more. But we are constrained by what we have,
therefore we get into relationships that are what we have, but
are always left wanting more from them. Regan, P (2003:102)
Balance, equity, and exchange theories, show that people are
strategically' attracted to those with whom an exchange of
resources would be in approximate equilibrium Berscheid, E.
Walster, E., (1974); Clark, M.S. Reis, H.T. (1988); Rusbult, Buunk,
(1993).
However, when we finally attempt to form a 'team' with sexual
partners, or any form of relationship in general with people, we
experience, disagreements.
We struggle to form teams that actually work! That actually
produce more than the sum of their parts, . The phenomena that
makes such a collaboration the work of fantasy, a dream, an
ambition, is called Phenomenology.
We've all had the experience that despite making a great deal of
effort to explain something to a friend, they still seem unable to
understand. Or our boss at work constantly seems annoyed that
we aren't working quite as hard as he would hope, that
somehow we don't understand the dreams of the company.
Our position in life depends on supporting factors that although
viable to ourselves, are invisible to those we are trying to build a
relationship with.
For example, when the a public company performs all the
analysis in order to determine what its stock price should be it
comes out 15% higher than the stock price set by the public
markets, who believe that the value of the company is worth
less. The bosses of the company see the opportunities for the
company, and how the company can achieve them with a
greater deal of clarity than can its audience.
The law of one price states that a market (with enough
information) is able to generate a single price for a economic
product or a activity, this is referred to as a market equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state of balance, where everyone agrees that the
prices of things should be as they are, they are perfectly accurate.
However, this has been shown to be impossible to achieve. For
the prices in the public financial markets to reach equilibrium
would take a million trillion years, and companies will never be
completely happy with the value placed on them.
As we have already covered, according to Expected Utility,
people try to act like firms, therefore people believe they are 15%
more valuable, than the ratings by others.
Our relationships with others are always in a state of
disequilibrium, a constant state of negotiating the power
balance, where one agent in the collaboration attempts to get the
other player to value their efforts 15% more. Yet the other player
tries to keep them negotiated down to 15% less.
Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements
difficult to reach. The concessions you make to me are my gains,
but they are your losses; they cause you much more pain than
they give me pleasure. Inevitably, you will place a higher value
on them than I do. The same is true, of course, of the very
painful concessions you demand from me, which you do not
appear to value sufficiently!
Animals, including people, fight harder to prevent losses than to
achieve gains. In the world of territorial animals, this principle
explains the success of defenders. A biologist observed that
“when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner
almost always wins the contest—usually within a matter of
seconds.” (p296,Daniel Kahnemann – Thinking fast and slow)
Disequilibrium causes a swing of stock prices, and this same
swing occurs always as relationships try to negotiate price.
Therefore we cannot ever have a direct collaboration of efforts,
or beliefs with those we form relationships with, and thus never
a team in the true sense of the word, we constantly negotiate
with our teammate; Which ideas are more valuable? What
activities are our priority? Who holds the majority of the power
balance?.
“Most researchers interested in exploring partner preferences
focus on what people – that is, on the characteristics or attributes
they seek in potential, and often idealized, partners. However,
one of the realities of human existence in general – and certainly
that of human mating – is that to quote a famous rock groups
lyrics “You can’t always get what you want.”
In other words, although we might ideally want to date or marry
someone with a particular set of attributes. Perhaps the desired
partner is so attractive that he or she has many mating choices
and we are merely one among the many possible options. – the
ability to make compromises in the arena of sex, love and mating
is extremely important. For example if most people were
unwilling to deviate from their ideal standards – then little
actual mating would take place.” Everyone would be stuck in
limbo waiting for that ‘perfect partner’. Regan, P. (2003:155)
So if there is such a difficulty in valuing the efforts of others, and
valuing ourselves. How then are we expected to value beliefs
and decisions with greater precision. Although people are
motivated by the perfect-rationality of a well formed
collaboration. Or the constant pursuit for higher utility. We
struggle with considering the vast quantity of factors involved.
Without such complexity, we would be able to accurately predict
what decisions humans are likely to make, with absolute
perfection. We could build models to analyze what decision
would a person make under certain circumstances. However this
is just a dream, a motivating goal. Therefore Decision Economics
was developed by academics and mathematicians as a 'plug' to
solve this difficulty.
According to a Economic model the term ‘Decision’ is simply an
inductive way of analysing information from a agent-
environment perspective. There is a whole host of debate that
occurs when you reduce human thought down to experiences
that are entirely circumstance dependent, i.e. the economics of
the circumstance dictate the selected decision. [16] Mook, D. G.
(1987) this makes it a behaviourist theory because it focuses on
behaviour and ignores “thoughts, feelings, and other internal
events” it believes that these are “not part of the causes of action.
They are actions, to be explained in turn. They are caused by the
same environmental events that cause the external, overt
behaviour.”
This model, of looking at the world i.e. economics directly
applied to human decision making is referred to as Bounded
rationality, it shows our thoughts and feelings to be agent-
reprsentations that are formed top-down from the resources
available, within a higher economic frame' [7] Wilson, R. Kiel, F.
(1997) people fill specific information gaps, with the information
that they believe (from bounded-rational frame) will result in the
largest expected gains.
The research for this model comes from recent research in fields
that are exporting logic from economics and merging them into
biology/evolution and sociological sciences.
“Increasingly since the 1970s, the expected utility model has
been used as a mechanism to explain human behaviour outside
the traditional province of economics. Under the influence of
economists like Becker, sociologists such as Coleman, and
legalists like Posner, choices affecting behaviour within families,
voting in elections, law-making, criminal activity and drug-
taking, and even church attendance and giving have been
gathered into the Neoclassical fold. So wide-reaching has
become the ambit of the model that its name became popularised
as "rational choice theory" to emphasise its "non-economic"
relevance.
Where psychology has over six hundred separate conflicting
models of assuming the likely motivations of human
consciousness, bringing a statistically verifiable bounded
rationality to the table offers many benefits to anticipating what
actions people are likely to take when under various social
pressures.
There are popular theories that successfully blend economics
with psychological models, their main skill is accounting for
biases in problem solving, judgment and choice The most
fruitful, popular alternative theories spring from the idea that
“limits on computational ability force people to use simplified
procedures or ‘heuristics’ that cause systematic mistakes (biases)
in problem solving, judgment, and choice Simon, H. (1978) These
rational-choice theorists, have plenty of research to support[8]
that the following conditions (with some minor adaptations) are
true of all economic agents. “I) People have rational preferences
among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a
value. II) Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize
profits. Iii) People act independently on the basis of full and
relevant information. “ [3]
From the discussion into economics thus far, we could draw the
conclusion, that human beings have a desperate need to
continue existence. As perhaps all things that exist do! (Else
perhaps they wouldn't exist!) Whether this is the smallest of
bacteria or computer models of an amoeba like those seen in
Sugarscape.
We exist, by leveraging every unique feature we have, to prevent
imitation by our competition, and to form alliances where
necessary. By doing this we have a kind of monopoly. Increasing
our likelihood of survival. Our cognitive faculty of attention, by
its very nature, has no choice but to guide your focus, and place
your concentration on those things that seem to offer us a better
chance.
In stark contrast to other old-psychological models, for example
Sigmund Freud concept of ID, EGO and Superego, this model
relies heavily on calculating the expected utility of an activity
considering the context of human social activities, all activities
that humans participate in have a price usually expressed in (£)
GBP or ($) US Dollars.
There's ways to calculate a price, for example you could consider
emotional investment by a potential mate to be;
Hours thinking about you @ £/$ value of her hours. = Emotional
investment. And then compare this against her other
hobbies/interests or potential sexual mates and then discount
this against her other opportunities, then the highest value in £/$
would be her highest commitment, probably akin to an emotion
such as love. (As we tend to value our time and effort with a
kind of love as powerful as the detail that we understand our
own development through life history)
This might seem like a haphazard model, but the general idea is
that you take the most significant variables and you then look
for a price, the way we would establish the cost of her per hour,
would be how much she is likely to gain if she devoted her
efforts to work.
The reason we select only the opportunity that is the most
beneficial to be the one that we are in love with, is because, we
value our pursuits as goal setting has been shown as integral to
the sense of wholeness and well-being in the personality, and
therefore the lack of following their most beneficial pursuit is
likely to result in a sense of personality imbalance.
The difficulty in predicting what action is likely to result in the
most beneficial result, is that we live in a unpredictable terrain,
i.e. we are not sure what’s likely to happen in the future, and we
have limited perception of the all the information we need to
know to make a full decision. Therefore we are constantly in a
state of balance then imbalance ad infinum.
When we walk around a shopping precinct, we are constantly
looking for the 'best offer' that illusive thing that will make us
have a better life, at little cost! Perhaps it’s a new snakeskin
jacket, or glittered shoes, but we imagine by owning the best
quality, that we will lead a higher quality existence.
The traditional model (Neoclassical Economic behaviour)
assumes that people only care about the outcome of economic
decisions, and not the process that people go through in making
them. If we are to more accurately predict, what decision
someone is likely to make, we must consider the considerable
time and effort involved in the process of decision-making. And
its this “Plug” between our true motivation, and our limitations
is called Bounded Rationality.
This new field has recently produced a 67 Noble Prize Winners
including Daniel Kahneman: 2002, Vernon Smith: 2002, and
Herbert Simon: 1978 to name a few.
When you make a choice, you typically place various limits on
yourself, like how long your long your going to spend solving
this problem, how much data your going to recall from memory
to compare against, and the like. Before academia studied mental
heuristic models of economics, the model of human decision
making didn't consider things like bargaining, fairness and
coercion... people look to the benefits that their peers receive, in
order to determine whether they got a fair deal. Beinhocker
(2005)
To attempt to make the most beneficial decision, considering all
the probabilities on which cause of action or belief is most likely
to result in higher utility compared against all the others. Is a
computation that humans simply aren't intelligent enough to
make. In 1985 Alain Lewis used sophisticated mathematical
models from the theory of computation that mathematically
proved no one, not even the smartest arbitrageur, could actually
make the calculations described according to expected utility
theory. Lewis (1985) also shown by Steven pinker (1997), Clark,
A. (2001), Dennett, D.(1991)
Therefore people use various cognitive biases, to shortcut this
mathematically in-computable decision process. These are;
Framing Biases “Exactly how an issue is framed can effect how
we think about it” , Representativeness “People have a bad habit
of drawing big conclusions from very small and biased
samples”, Availability Biases “People tend to make decisions
based on data that is easily available as opposed to finding the
data that is really needed to make a good decision” , Difficulties
Judging risk “People find it difficult to discount decision
probability trees”, Superstitious reasoning “People confuse
random chance with cause and effect. They connect unrelated
things” , mental accounting “people store information in
separate compartments of their mind, that never get compared
to the information in another compartment. Beinhocker,
(2005:122)
These biases allow persuaders and marketeers play on our wants
and desires, and create wants and desires that we didn't have.
Lewis Carroll stated in her book “The hunting shark”, that
“What I tell you three times is true” there’s plenty of examples
of this, “A rumor once went around that McDonald's used
ground earthworms in its hamburgers. Sales plummeted as
much as 30 per cent in some areas. Practically nobody believed
the rumor. No one believed a big corporation would risk its
billion dollar brand, and do such a thing. The point is, things no
one believes, still affect behaviour” Poundstone, W. (2010:200).
Professional walk-around magicians have long known that it
doesn't matter if an participant notices how a trick is done, he
knows that as he continues his performance, the participant will
become so amazed, that even if they understood how a small
part of the performance works, they will still applaud the
performance to be be amazing and impossible, failing to deduce
the entire workings of the magic trick. They know that they will
“get them eventually.”
Good liars know “Deny everything” because they know that, the
listener will have little choice but to believe the liar after he's
repeated himself several times.
To understand the effect of economics on what we can get
people to do, and think, we need to look at mental heuristics,
this will help us understand how suggestion influences peoples
perception.
We've all had the experience of yawning, and then watching
many of our friends begin yawning in response. There has been
a great deal of research into why we mimic the decisions, and
behaviors of our peers.
In the bounded-rationality model of economics for
understanding human decision making, an important concept
was devised, this concept is Priming. Kahneman, states that,
“Words and other stimuli activate relevant mental processes.
Once 'switched on', this cognitive machinery remains accessible
for a while, influencing subsequent thoughts and actions. When
priming affects the estimation of number values, psychologists
call it anchoring.” Poundstone, W(2010:94)
“Anchoring effects are mostly caused by the fact that when I ask
you if the tallest redwood is more than 800 feel tall, I have
primed you to think of very tall trees” Explains Kahneman “The
sample of trees you recover from memory is biased upwards”
Poundstone, W(2010:94).
In one study, a four digit number was wrote on a post-it-note
attached to a questionnaire. participants were asked to write it
down into their candidate number for the questionnaire before
completing the paper.
During the questionnaire one question asked “Please estimate
how many doctors you expect there to be in the local phone
book” even though, their candidate number was unrelated
doctors, or phone books, higher candidate numbers caused
significantly more participants to write higher estimates.
Later when they modified the study to make participants pay
attention to the candidate number. The extra second of attention
on the number increased the correlation to be three times as
close to the candidate number Davis, M. Marslen-Wilson, W.
Gaskell, G. (1997)
The concept anchoring states that “If you say something is
valuable then people will believe it” for example in a study
where participants in a auction placed bids on items, the
opening bet was randomly selected price in US dollars from a
number between 1-100. It was shown that items that had a high
opening price, resulted in a significantly higher bet than those
that started with a low opening price” Ariely, D., Loewenstein,
G. and D. Prelec, (2003)
The highest price paid for an item was the Keyboard, the
researchers purposely tried to choose an item that they believed
the bidders would find difficult to price, as the frequency of
exposure to an item/idea allows us to more closely compare
values from other experiences. The researchers state “We wanted
something where people don't have a strong reference price.
They needed a brand new product to price, so they selected a
keyboard.” Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. and D. Prelec, (2003)
Many of us have probably been to Harrods, Self fridges, Harvey
Nicholas and other expensive high street stores, and noticed the
£1,000,000 mobile phone, or the £7,500,000 watch! And we
wonder, who the hell buys a £7.5million watch... the answer
probably is not a lot of people, or more realistically no one. Its
the advice of many consulting firms that specialize in pricing for
retail outlets that by having high price products on display,
makes people feel a lot more comfortable paying £120 for a
keyring. Or £900 for a handbag, much higher than those
shoppers would have originally paid.
These are examples of the illusion of value, and people who
don't understand the cost of producing a watch, or jewelry are
likely to fall for it, providing they aren't influenced by other
sources of price.
There are various reasons why people fall victim to these
illusions, according to Researcher Jehiel, P. (2003); I) Limited
foresight – players can only predict the near future ii) Analogy-
based expectation formulation, - Players take an average
conditioned sequence of events from past analogies to anticipate
the future Iii) The Grouping similar information to predict future
scenarios
The more rare an item is, the more difficult it is to compare
against other products and therefore allocate a 'fair' price for the
item. If I told you a “Jum Jam” was worth £2million but I’m
willing to do you a deal, you might be interested in buying it.”
These external cues of value, cause “Automatic brain processes –
whether cognitive or affect – they whir along all the time, even
when we dream, constituting most of the electro-chemical
activity in the brain... Attention, for example, is largely
controlled by automatic processes, and attention in turn
determines what information we absorb.
You can be doing your taxes, when a cricket ball crashes through
the window. You don't decide to look up and see what makes
the noise. Its automatic” Poundstone, W. (2011)
People are constantly attempting to optimize to increase their
utility. Every cell in the human body, every atom in space, is
seeking further existence, by utilizing the very best of its
opportunities.
Its possible that when we Yawn, the reason everyone copies us,
is because they are attempting the evaluate whether 'now' is the
best time to rest in order to further their productivity in the
future.
However, this question of whether 'is now the best time to rest'
is a leading question that is biased to incline us to conjure up all
of the reasons that we might be tired, and therefore become it.
We constantly hear this phrase thrown about from popular
psychology, that “You can't change a first impression”, which
emphasizes the importance of introductions. The other day I
heard a man introduce himself as “I’m older than Brad Pitt but
younger than Mick Jagger”, this anchors the man as a gentleman
with similar characteristics as those he's referred to, and then
your mind will begin to search for similar features amongst
those three people mentioned.
For a while now when asked, Where you live? I've replied, “I
sleep between hotels around the world”, whether its believed or
not is somewhat irrelevant, if the person can engage their
attention on such places, and feel emotionally involved with my
character, then its likely belief will follow.
Today's behavioral decision theorists, believe, the people who
are successful at it [persuasion] are good at exploiting their
partners limited attention and bounded-rationality” from my
experience, the people who are best at this, are those who's job it
is to amaze and deceive. Few magicians believe in free will, they
are quite often a skeptical bunch, they realize that, their
misdirection causes audiences to pay attention to “A, B, and C,
rather than X, Y, and Z” the audiences believe they saw
everything of importance, or at any rate could have seen
everything” had they chosen not to follow the attention of the
performer Poundstone, W. (2011:213)
Economics teaches us; the origins of value, how the price of
value is dictated by competition, the motivations of the human
spirit, and has shown us that by having people; pay attention, be
frequently exposed to priming, and the source, all are
fundamentally important, for understanding; persuasion.
Bounded rationality shows us that humans anticipate the future
from modeling their limited interpretation of their current
experience, as pointed out “Humans and other animals need to
make inferences about their environment under constraints of
limited time, knowledge, and computational capacities. (Swiss
Journal of Economics and Statistics, Vol 133, (1997, 201–218)”
and they use this to infer, the level of risk seeking vs risk
avoidant behavior necessary to achieve the greatest utility.
If we can exaggerate these conditions of limited time, knowledge
and data, we can begin to understand the reason why people in
highly pressurized situations such as financial trading, often
seem, not quite as rational as we might hope, and lead our
economies to crash!
This risk-seeking behavior is the kind that will cause our
audiences, to more engaged and quick to be primed to the
anchor realities we present, during this experience it becomes
entirely necessary for our participants to engage in superstitious
thinking, to over-generalize the rules we present.
Sudden moments of attention, are not a choice. They are
environment defined, they are external cues of value, cause
“Automatic brain processes – whether cognitive or affect – they
whir along all the time, even when we dream, constituting most
of the electro-chemical activity in the brain... Attention, for
example, is largely controlled by automatic processes, and
attention in turn determines what information we absorb. You
can be doing your taxes, when a cricket ball crashes through the
window. You don't decide to look up and see what makes the
noise. Its automatic” Poundstone,. W (2010:211) by engaging the
attention, and offering realities, we can build responsive agents.
Our brains, are not designed to indicate whats important, for our
focus, only whats emergent. Perls, F. Hefferline, R. Goodman, P.
(1977) Magicians have long exploited the unconscious
machinery directing the roving gaze of attention... In the lore of
magic, misdirection is best accomplished with objects that are
moving rather than still: alive rather than inanimate; odd rather
than familiar... One of the canons of magic is 'a big move covers
a small move.' to deflect attention from a little suspicious action,
do something big and suspicious.
The small move seems less suspicious by comparison and is
ignored. The simple ruse works because the mind is always
joining vagrant perceptions into the illusion of a perfect,
seamless, real-time map of the surrounding world.”
Poundstone,. W; (2010:213)
We want to create these powerful moments in the minds of our
peers, so they become victim of our persuasion, and believe with
absolute clarity whatever we imply.
Attention, Utility, and consumption
“A single idea, can be so persuasive that it can, engulf and entire
being, and become the basis for every thought they make. In
short an idea is a parasite, like a virus.” – Richard Dawkins
This unique advantage that distinguishes one thing from another
in a really clear understandable way can be the difference for
businesses between making huge profits, or financial ruin.
Richard Dawkins, a famous evolutionist, outlined a model
stating that ideas fight competitively, like that of genes’ they
fight for survival amongst other ideas, and the ones that are
particularly unique have a competitive advantage and are
accepted. He called ideas ‘Meme’s.
Although people can carefully attend to and elaborate on the
content of a persuasion message, they can also process the
message quite superficially, attending only to cues peripheral to
its content such as the length of the message and the source of
the message. We attempt to characterize these two modes of
processing - systematic and heuristic - and to specify the
conditions that trigger and govern a specific mode of processing.
We haten to add that the two modes of information processing
(systematic vs heuristic) are not linked in one-to-one fashion
with the types of informational cues (message content vs other
cues) as suggested by some researchers Kruglanski & Thomson
(1999). What we believe is that people can engage in systematic
or heuristic processing. People can scrutinize cues peripheral to
the message content, or they can process the message content
heuristically. Dillard, James. Pfau, M. (2002:195)
Earlier cognitive theories focused on how people process the
quality of persuasion messages McGuire, W. J. (1968). For
example, persuasion effects were conceptualized in terms of the
attention allocated to the message, the comprehension of the
message content, and the acceptance of the message conclusions
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. and Kelley, H. H. (1953)
However; People rarely process information in perfect
conditions (Where the speaker has a monopoly of value) There
are both environmental and cognitive constraints on information
processing. These constraints have given rise to the metaphor of
the cognitive miser Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991) In this
metaphor, people are economy-minded, investing cognitive
effort in a task only when given sufficient motivation and
cognitive resources. Consistent with this assumption, the HSM
posits that people engage in systematic processing of persuasive
information only when they are sufficiently motivated. In a
systematic mode, people consider all relevant pieces of
information and form a judgement based on these elaborations.
However if people are not sufficiently motivated or do not have
sufficient cognitive resources, they can engage in superficial or
heuristic processing of available information. In heuristic mode,
people consider a few informational cues - or even a single
informational cue - and form a judgement based on these cues.
for instance, such cues may be the source of the message or the
length of the message, that is people use a simple decision rule
such as "Experts can be trusted" to arrive at a conclusion instead
of scrutinizing the quality of the persuasive arguments.
If we are going to communicate a message, it needs to relate to
the unique qualities that define our position, against our
competitors and customize it towards the audience that we want
to communicate.
Although consumption is fundamental to all forms of life,
human consumption is extraordinary in its variety and sheer
inventiveness. Some physical consumption, such as food and
water, is essential for basic survival and thus shared with other
organisms, but humans are remarkable in the scale of
consumption over and above meeting basic needs, and indeed in
the way that even “basic” consumption is embellished and
elaborated—consider, for example, the sheer number of brands
of bottled water.
We do not buy a product simply because it tastes or looks good,
but we also take into account the persona that surrounds the
brand, known as brand character.
When thinking about a brand, be it clothing, sports goods, food
or drink, we immediately conjure up ideas about the type of
person who buys and uses or wears it. One example of the
effectiveness of branding and advertising can be seen through
the two similar products, Diet Pepsi was perceived as feminine,
which deterred men from buying the product even though
market research had suggested that timing was perfect to
introduce diet soft drinks to a male market, as a response the
Pepsi Max brand was launched under a different image. The
advertising that surrounded this ‘new’ product reinforced the
notion of breaking boundaries, being active, cool and the centre
of attention, which drew in the male agent.
“Desire is prompted first and foremost by exposure to the brand,
whether exposure is seeing a friend wearing Diesel Jeans, or a PT
cruiser drive down the street, it triggers interest in the brand”
Lindstrom, M. and Seybold, P. B. (2003:59) On the other hand,
brands are symbols of aspirations, representing desired self-
qualities, such as sophistication or power. Thus, brand priming
may well activate goals linked with these desired outcomes and
thus elicit goal-directed behaviour.” Fitzsimons, Chartrand, T.
Fitzsimons, G. (2008)
Indeed, much of the psychological value consumers obtain from
brands appears to come from brands’ ability to fulfil their
personality and identity motivations. In representing desired
qualities of self - such as; sophistication or manliness, brands
such as Tiffany or Hummer are goal relevant in nature,
symbolizing aspirations or unattained goals. In particular, some
brands may represent “be” or ideal-self goals (e.g., to be
sophisticated), which describe people’s aims to improve
themselves Carver, C. Scheier, M. (2002) Gollwitzer, P. M., &
Moskowitz, G. B.(1996)
Just as exposure to role models—people who represent
success—can inspire goal-directed action, so too should
exposure to brands that symbolize success at a given goal.
Fitzsimons, Chartrand, T. Fitzsimons, G. (2008)
This concept that increases the prevalence of ideas is mere
exposure. This essentially is the concept that the frequency, or
repetition of hearing an idea or seeing a person. Causes us to
more admire, be attracted to and see similarity between their
ideas, attitudes, and personality as our own, therefore causing us
to more easily take on board their ideas.
Mere exposure, is a concept that says, that when we are only
partially exposed to an idea portrayed repetitively that we are
more attracted and pleased to see that thing presented. As an
idea we are more likely to accept it as truth.
This essentially is the concept that the frequency, or repetition of
hearing an idea or seeing a person. Causes us to more admire, be
attracted to and see similarity between their ideas, attitudes, and
personality as our own….therefore causing us to more easily
take on board their ideas.
Generally speaking, attraction is based on the frequency of
interactions, and the proximity of exposure to another person. In
one study it was found that the more often employees bumped
into each other in the office environment the more likely they are
to form romantic relations.
Research has shown that repeated exposure to a stimulus can
lead to a more positive, or less negative, evaluation of the
stimulus Zajonc, R. (1968). Thus, employees who interact during
their daily work routines can become attracted to one another
because of their repeated social contact. Indeed, a vast amount of
the literature on repeated exposure supports the claim that ‘mere
exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition
for the enhancement of his attitude toward it. Individuals who
are ‘encountered more frequently seem to elicit greater feelings
of attraction from us, even though often little or no social
interaction has taken place’”. Pierce, C. Byrne, D. Aguinis, H.
(1998)
What natural conditions create mere exposure? In a pioneering
study, Leon Festinger, Stanley Schaehter and Kurt Back (1950)
studied students attending the university of Massachusetts
institute of technology. They were interested in who the
students made friends with, as determined by proximity.
Physical distance measures the contact encouraged by the design
and relative positions in the environment (i.e. adjoining houses
could have front walkways leading in opposite directions).
Functional distance modifies physical distance because peoples
paths may be mere likely to cross if they share mailboxes,
walkways, or parking. The smaller the functional distance, the
more likely people are to bump into each other and perhaps
become friends. Two types of housing provided a natural
replication of the researchers study. In one, Westgate West,
apartments on the same floor shared common entrance porches
in a two-story building with external stairs between floors. In the
other Westgate Court, the duplex houses shared a common
courtyard with shared paths to the street. In both housing
complexes, researchers measured the distance between peoples
apartments – that is, proximity – as a predictor of friendship.
Residents nominated their top three contacts. Within one floor of
Westgate, west, over 41% of the top choices were next door
neighbours, with other 22% more being next but one. People’s
seemingly arbitrary assignment to apartments determined that
nearly two thirds of their friends would be within a door or two
of
their own place. “Susan T. Fiske (2009)
It’s been shown by numerous studies that “People remember
people associated with positive things but forget people
associated with negative things. An increasing amount of data
suggests that stimulus familiarity increases with stimulus
positivity” that is to say that we think positive experiences are
familiar. For example we might recognize a smiling person, who
makes direct eye contact with us, thinking we’ve met them
before. But not recognize someone we know but looks sad or
depressed. Berscheid. Walster. (1972)
If your associated with positivity your likely to be remembered
and preached about. This is why in car adverts they feature
glamorous locations, and sexy women, these items have little to
do with cars, most people don’t take their fancy Mercedes Benz
when travelling abroad. And most people only can afford cars
like Mercedes Benz when they are near retirement and therefore
are perhaps unlikely to have a girl on their arm like shown in
those adverts. (That’s not to imply anything disrespectful to
older women). Other than an idea being unique, it’s the
frequency and proximity of exposure to that person or thing that
increases your liking of it and your engagement with it. This is
why many companies will have a cheap product that they will
distribute to huge numbers of people and offer an upgrade for
the premium and advance version of the package. For instance
Sky television (a Satellite TV company equivalent to cable TV in
the us) have a basic package of £20-00 then to get their movie
channels, entertainment channels and sport channels you pay an
increased fee. 75% of UK society could afford the Sky basic
package; by getting the majority of people involved then you can
easily upgrade these people later on to the full package. By
doing this you reach a much wider audience and make larger
profits.
When we try and decide what product to buy, it’s a very difficult
decision. Well perhaps you, the reader find it easy because you
made the highly educated decision to buy this book = ) but
seriously, you had little way of knowing whether buying this
book was going to help you in any way.
Perhaps you knew it might this text might teach you something
about hypnotism, or how to influence, or how to seduce. But you
had no way of knowing that it was the best product to buy to
suit your need.
We, the reader of the advert, don't really have any assessment of
whether it’s a good deal. It just depends on whether we want
what the product claims to offer us, and if it does manage to do
this then the product is worth buying.
This is why you can sit courses on Viral Marketing, or Website
marketing. And they teach you things like;
“List the bullet points of things your customer will gain by
buying the product, relating the benefits to them.”
In order to prescribe benefits to a person we must know a little
information about the person; like what motivates them? Why
are they likely looking at your advert? Where have they seen
your advert? How old are they? And what sex are they.
“When we buy a product we are actively seeking benefit that we
desire and believe we will receive as an outcome of ownership
and usage of a particular brand and/or product” Morrin,
Maureen and S. Ratneshwar (2000)
On the internet there are millions of websites set up by web-
entrepreneurs looking to make a quick buck. They have a long
sales letter explaining why you should buy their product, how
it’s selling out fast and how it’s the best in the world.
These letters emphasize the benefits for the customer while
explaining that their product is exclusive and never seen before
on the market. And that it’s been reduced from $599-00 to only
$89-00 and this is a good deal! The list of benefits is usually
explained in bullet points like the below:
- You will have the five ultimate techniques to persuade
anyone to do anything!
- You will be able to attract any girl
- You will be getting a product approved by worldwide
experts. Rated by many as the #1 product in the world.
- It’s easy to learn and you will be able to perform it in
two weeks!
When reading such an advert you have no way of knowing
whether they are telling you a load of lies, without having an in-
depth knowledge of the topic area. Your only choice for many
viewers of the advert is simply to accept the statements within
the advert as true and click the buy button.
We are all prone to these techniques. The typical website viewer
views a site for roughly 22 seconds. But inclusions numerous
pages full of easy to read content, image slideshows, and videos
causes the viewer to wait for the next event to occur in the video
or the next slide in the slideshow, and this typically increases the
conversation ratio, meaning that the viewers of the website stay
there longer, and are far more likely to buy the product listed on
the website as they feel a greater connection with your brand as
they have invested more time into viewing your website with a
degree of attention.
In this complex sensory world on infinite information &
possibilities, we find it difficult to know what is a good thing to
believe, and what is a bad thing, so we just have to rely on things
such as ‘how frequently we’ve heard it’, ‘how emotionally
positive it made us feel’, ‘how similar we feel to it’, and ‘the
utility benefit it claims it will offer us’.
When buying a product from an advertisement, without having
an in-depth knowledge of the industry, whether its fashion,
poodles, or eggs - you simply can't make a decent decision about
what is best to do without in-depth research. For example, to
know whether an advert for a hypnosis product is offering you a
good deal you would have to have an in depth knowledge
equivalent to that of a post-graduate academic researcher. Also
you would need an understanding of the scientific method etc.
and then practical experience of performing hypnosis in public.
And then if the method of creating responsive audiences
involved social factors, for example in my case. You would need
experience of socializing and perhaps the seduction community
in order to be able to make a decision as to whether the product
offering is a good one.
What does this discussion into the complexity of buying
decisions teach us about influence? It shows us that when people
are unable to make a decision based on logical reasoning they
rely on other factors. These are typically quite vague attributes,
such as; Quality of the brand, Familiarity of the concepts,
likeability of the seller. As Branding and Likeability are covered
elsewhere in the book, we'd like to discuss the importance of
familiarity.
How do we before more familiar? And what effects does this
have on the influence of our ideas, recommendations, and
attractiveness?
Mere exposure, is a concept that says, that when we are only
partially exposed to an idea portrayed repetitively that we are
more attracted and pleased to see that thing presented. As an
idea we are more likely to accept it as truth.
This essentially is the concept that the frequency, or repetition of
hearing an idea or seeing a person. Causes us to more admire, be
attracted to and see similarity between their ideas, attitudes, and
personality as our own, therefore causing us to more easily take
on board their ideas.
Games, Players and their values
"Space Created by Things… Space was, for Plato, a nothingness
existing as an entity [itself]… (in the absence of objects, space
would still exist, as an empty, boundless container)" Arnheim,
Rudolf; (1977)
This book began from very humble beginnings; I planned it to be
a PowerPoint presentation that I would deliver to students who
wanted to learn on a new style of persuasion course. The
presentation was developed just-in-case I was asked to speak at
any important conference where I wanted to deliver my latest
work.
This chapter represented a core component of the theory I was
looking to publicize; however when I mentioned the concept to
others in my field, that I had developed some theories based
around “all interaction being a form of bribery” I received
negative criticism – and decided being as I didn’t have much
evidence to support the theory that – “When you exchange
interaction in a conversation you bride each other with the
power and resources you have in individual skill sets in order to
try and manipulate the other person to give you what you want
that they have access to”, that we use interactions to obtain
power; I was told that this theory sounded weak, and being as I
couldn’t find support from the scientific community to back up
my claim I decided to drop that section of theory out of my
work.
The problem with the theory that people do things for non-
financial benefits in interaction is that it’s difficult to establish
what kind of benefits people receive from interactions; as many
conversations seem to lack any purpose or goal whatsoever. But
just because most interactions seem to lack any intent; doesn’t
mean people don’t have an underlying motive occasionally that
dictates their actions when they are conversing with others.
This study of non-financial gain in micro-circumstances (i.e.
between two people) is really under researched – as its much
easy to look into the actions of large groups of people than study
individuals as statistical analysis has further validity that allows
the control of factors that influence the research, allowing a
degree of control over the variables that you want to see if they
correlate i.e. whether one thing affects another.
we all live in a world of social encounters; involving us to either
participate in accidental contact with strangers or meditated
contact i.e. “I need to speak to that girl over there”, or “I need to
make contact with this person as I want to propose an idea, but
if I don’t approach him on a personal level – as a friend – I will
likely be rejected”.
I’ve already exposed you to the idea of this book which is that
people compete – and they acquire all the resources they
possibly can to achieve hedonistic goals (pleasure) without
spending too much time, effort & assets.
And that certain venues – simply because of the sheer number of
people represent a scenario where there are so many people that
its difficult to assess whether they are useful as a tool to attain
the desire you seek – in other words, people are a means to an
end for you, but when there are so many people to choose from
who are all relatively similar in apparent attributes then it
becomes hard to choose which persons to use.
The additional problem is that our goals (the pleasures we seek)
also represent a significant degree of flexibility i.e. we are willing
to change the goal-posts (what criteria the goal must meet) based
on the resources we can easily acquire. For example; if I was
good at sport, or new plenty of sports people perhaps I wouldn’t
spent my time producing psychology material but instead focus
on becoming a sportsman, or in my case delivering sports
psychology workshops.
That my goals adequately change based on the scenario I’m in,
in order to achieve the greatest utility possible, i.e. the most
amount of money, the best quality of life and further
unanticipated potential expectations.
When we embark on our lives as a young adult, we quickly learn
to distinguish ourselves from other people in order to become an
individual when it comes to fitting into social groups.
We might aim to be the pretty one “she’s so pretty”, “she’s so
skinny”, “She’s so intelligent”, “She’s so slutty” – so we have a
certain position within certain settings and don’t directly
compete with any one of our peers, as to avoid conflicting
interests, gaining a monopoly over our unique skillset
distribution “he only likes her because she’s pretty”, “he only
likes her because she’s rich”, “he only likes her because she’s a
slut” this allows us to achieve higher utility without competing
with our friends – while fitting into a larger group of people that
provides means of social support i.e. “Can I share a lift with you
guys” , “let’s go to the movies together, maybe boys will be
there”, “Jessica, you’re the smart one, can I study with you”,
“Hannah, your hair is so pretty, could you do mine?”
As we pass through our teenage years and quickly become an
adult we encounter completely different problems – we need to
earn money, as our families help quickly falls away, and our
friends become preoccupied with relationships, changing
schools, and moving to different cities, we need to quickly
rebuild social groups, to act as a breeding group for ideas, to
provide social attention, to share problems with, to pursue
educational pursuits, hear about work opportunities, to spend
time with during the pursuit of the opposite sex and other
unanticipated needs.
In order to achieve this efficiently, considering the huge portion
of people, the quick changing of life circumstances and other
things we need to be adaptive; to quickly impress others we
meet by weighing up what type of people we want to group
with ‘stereotyping’ and moulding how we want to be
stereotyped . We seek social differentiation by developing skills
– for example choosing what subject to be good at in the eyes of
an employer – and perhaps aligning ourselves with similar
minded people in that field in order to hear of opportunities, and
develop creative thoughts, ways of being that indicate you’re a
member of that social category.
There isn’t the time, energy, or memory abilities to be good at
everything. The fact of the matter is that attention is extremely
limited – so you must become different and niche in a set of
skills while ignoring other traits that you don’t have time to
develop. This intensifies the need for social support as we
develop our abilities to be charismatic, humorous, pretty, and
also develop capabilities such as the way we speak, the topics we
easily find ourselves able to converse in ‘due to rehearsal’ -
meaning we need to be a member of groups that support our
talents, that make us more of a different character while
providing socialisation.
When you become a member to a social group, or a label of
people, the identification with these other members leads you to
develop a sense of self – a clear defined personality, a way of
marketing yourself to others who would like to purchase your
services and potential employers.
If your social group is threatened, by an outside force – another
group seeks to destroy your label, or seeks to compete to get the
same benefits that your group is trying to acquire, then your
group will quickly become a structured organisation to fight
against the threat – this can be seen in the case of work unions
who suddenly become unionized the moment a competing
interest threatens the job security of that industry.
"Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender
plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere
want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it
speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in
life has devoted them and the society into which it has thrown
them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in
exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their
intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for
indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior
pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, because
they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the
only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying" - John
Stuart Mill
We have to make decisions in our life; to economize in a skill in
order to survive – at the loss of our creativity; we bid on
particular keywords, ideologies and hope it makes us
marketable to a crowd; whether it be in our social life, or our
employability. Human behaviour is like a marketplace in the
same way that an economist would look at a financial market, or
the way Google decides how to prioritize its search engine
results.
That when we enter a venue, we are in a marketplace indirectly
interacting with countless strangers; and although we are not
under the constant and detailed guidance of sophisticated
mathematic analysis that decide our behaviours, that dictate the
relationships we build and the conversations we have; we
nonetheless are determined by a kind of logic.
Where we calculate pleasure, avoid expense, and discount the
potential win by the probability of risk. Our actions are the
product of this logic mixed in with of reflex actions, impulses,
instincts, habits, customs, fashions & hysteria. Camerer,C.
Loewenstein, G. Prelec, D. (2005)
According to the theory that we are using also known as “Social
identity theory” - Your personality, is the character traits you
show in order to achieve what you want – this is to say that we
believe personality is adaptive – situation specific, driven by
environmental forces. Sure it is needless to say that people have
memories, and these memories give someone a sense of
themselves over time, but as time changes so do people.
You are defined by the way you arrange component parts of
yourself in your life – the way you categorize and label your
experiences – using your workplace, your education and study,
the books you’ve read, the internet accounts you hold and how
you use them, and the friends you keep and the social groups
you’re a member of.
Earlier on in the economics section of the book; we covered
morality and utilitarianism – which covered the pursuit of
hedonistic pleasures; but then included such things as the cost of
achieving those pleasures. We seek higher planes of utility –
which we are chiefly concerned with “How much we are willing
to pay for the fulfilment or satisfaction of our desires” Alfred
Marshall. (1920)
We; have developed a range of specialisms that make us unique
attracted to certain social groups – but an unable to participate in
other social groups – That we look for members to form an ‘In
Group’ and define ourselves against competing ideas that view
our resources, skills, etc. more critically.
We locate; social groups that have similar ideals to the beliefs we
value – and then use those groups to practice, and explore our
beliefs, values, principles, attitudes and behaviours further. We
organise through the social world as an exploration of our own
cognitive existence.
“Man’s progress requires specialization. But a division-of-labor
society cannot survive without a rational philosophy—without a
firm base of fundamental principles whose task is to train a
human mind to be human, i.e., conceptual.” Rand (1984)
The structure of consciousness according to an author in the
theory of ‘Flow’ states depends upon the values we keep, and
exploring, interacting with stimuli in the world, alternatively
selecting interesting emergent information to integrate and store
into categories; she continues - “In order for the self to meditate
between these often conflicting instructions, the human
organism had to develop another feature, an informational
system that could differentiate among a great variety of stimuli,
that could choose certain stimuli and focus selectively on them,
and that could store and retrieve the information in a useable
way.” – that by communicating with our peers we selectively
reinforce the boundaries between values, which as a result
reinforces our sense of consciousness. Csikszentmihalyi, M.
Csikszentmihalyi, I.(1992)
“Social differential is itself genetically (i.e. Darwinian/Smithian
in nature) based. Social insects are an-atomically differentiated to
facilitate the performance of their specialized functional roles
Wilson, E. (1975) Dominance – Submission hierarchies seem to
be present in all socially living primates. Already during the first
year of life, human infants placed in a playpen begin to show
rudiments of social stratification, with the familiar Marxist (or
capitalist) differention between those who control resources and
those who do not. By six years of age quite stable and generally
accepted rankings in “toughness” develop among boys Daniel
G. Freedman (1979) Omark, Strayer,Freedman (1980)
“The more complex the social system – the more statuses and
roles it contains – the more markers of differential it will have to
use.”
Consciousness Evolves, over the course of centuries attention
has competed and become more diverse as it innovates and
specialises in differentiated stimuli – even though persons are no
more intelligent and able to process more information than their
ancestors did a million years ago; they have developed a way of
condensing, summarizing and externalising information that
would be impossible to process; their cumulative algorhithms
have made the manipulation of information more complex than
it has ever been. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Csikszentmihalyi,
I.(1992:25)
From our formation, participation and character that we play out
in groups causes “particular situation specific sense of self
concept behaviours, attitudes, to be activated (‘switched on’)
producing various self-images… as a function of an interaction
between characteristics of the perceiver and the situation.” Henri
Tajfel (2010) Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., et al (1987)
“Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does
this - no dog exchanges bones with another.”Adam Smith(1776)
According to social exchange theory – the theory that we bargain
in our conversations for non-economical-utility - when we form
relationships; whether it be a brief conversation with a stranger –
or with aim to make someone our wife or boss; It should be
viewed as a form of exchange and bargaining – where you are
offering certain values and qualities into the mix, while they are
offering others.
In economics, when two people are exchanging goods it’s called
– Comparative Advantage – that people specialize in a particular
type of talent, in order to exchange value with others. In order to
demonstrate this; suppose everyone in the world was equally as
good as each other at everything – then why would you need a
mechanic to fix your car, a builder to build your house etc.
We build our relationships in order to make more than we spend
- i.e. to become better people; funnier, more pretty, more
intelligent and all the niche of qualities associated in those
categories.
If your offering represents enough value beyond the costs that it
costs the other participant to interact with you – then the
interaction will continue, and perhaps escalate further – but if
not the relationship will quickly end or never begin in the first
place – as relationships are the pursuit of joint benefit.
If an individual doesn’t believe they are gaining anything from
an interaction; but are there when they know they could achieve
higher utility elsewhere, then they are there against their will.
Their participation is against what makes them most profitable
and for this reason they feel a feeling of discomfort perhaps
accompanied by the thought “I don’t want to do this”, “I don’t
want to talk to this person”, “I want to quit this job”, “I can’t
believe this guy is trying to have sex with me”.
This is to say; that even the opportunity of other things other
than the interaction someone is currently in are a cost and if the
interaction the person is in, isn’t great enough to increase the
mental-capability of a given value category (drive) that the
purpose of the interaction is attempting to increase – then the
interaction will end. The only exception to this is when people
are forced against their will (i.e. will being their believed
opportunities outside of the current circumstances).
When you make eye contact with someone across a room, buy a
coffee, dancing on a dance floor, you are signalling information
like crazy; across many different categories of drives that other
people are looking to acquire – When a place is full of different
opportunities and threats, being signalled I will refer to this as
‘Noise’.
We’ll quickly cover while signalling should be classified as noise
– every time a piece of information is exposed to you, you
automatically recall schemas – category blocks of information –
associative memories relating to that precise topic – there’s
multiple problems with this, it distracts you from what your
priorities are i.e. what you’re looking to specialize in – while at
the same time the information that your offered does not fit into
the schematic mental boxes in your brain; that your connecting
ideas are not actually precisely what is being signalled – the
mental reality is different from the signalled reality; there are
huge conflicts in information from what you see, what you are
trying to achieve and the like, and it causes a form of
psychological distress – this distress that prevents you ‘hearing’
what you want to see communicated, or the attitudes/behaviours
etc. that you want to engage in, will be referred to as noise – as it
acts as a barrier.
The problem with life is, the opportunities are amongst the
threats, one man’s garbage is another man’s gold. Our aim is to
acquire all of our partner’s assets while giving up none of our
own. And the best players at this game; can be rated and ranked
in different ways – this can be referred to as status or popularity;
there are lots of different signals of status – money, being a well-
rounded individual, popularity, adaptability. But for the sake of
a measurement, we could say that the highest ranked individual
is the one who receives the most attention amongst peers, that
others look to that person for opportunities, and end up putting
‘more of themselves’ into the interaction because they so greatly
require the value that the high-status person holds.
Think of the crew, or posse that a high status celebrity has
around them, or even if you look at the size of the social groups
that a respectable DJ, or successful creative content producer
might have surrounding them; they have a monopoly, and
people are willing to pay the highest price ‘their personality’ in
the pursuit of gaining some of the inspiration that the other
person offers.
In one study; they rated the status of an individual in the
workplace based on “the number of colleagues who reported his
name, when they were asked to recall who they lunched with in
the past” This provides an index of how in-demand all the
individuals in the workplace where comparatively to one
another.
A person’s attraction to a group stimulates his desire to become
a member, but only if he proves himself attractive to its other
members can he realize this desire and gain social acceptance.
Like groups, pairing, and individuals – every scenario is unique
– groups form because of complementary values and goals – and
unique abilities to achieve those goals.
When you begin on a relationship exchange behaviour with
others; they must unconsciously consider the following –
“opportunity costs, investment costs, the actual loss of the
material resource, or costs intrinsic to the behaviour itself; the
opportunity costs of exchange refer to the “rewards forgone”
from alternative partners or behaviours not chosen.”
For example; consider the idea of going to a movie with a friend,
rather than staying at home and reading a book – it might be that
you value the intellectual knowledge that you will acquire from
reading the book as a reward that will be just as valuable as
maintaining the relationship with your friend. In this example
the financial cost of watching the film, and the hours lost could
be valued as equal to the effort to hold your attention to read a
book along with the hours lost reading the book would take.
When considering costs, not only is there opportunity cost,
investment etc. but one must consider the psychological costs –
for example the fatigue associated with using excessive attention
& concentration, the unpleasantness of sitting in the same
position for hours on end etc.
We briefly mentioned game theory earlier on in the book. This is
the theory - that people mathematically calculate the value of the
exchanges they are participating in. It’s a fundamental principle
in mathematics and economics to explain the actions of large
businesses, and individuals; when participating in a two or more
person game, where if they work together they will achieve
greater benefits than they would if they separately pursued their
own selfish desires.
“Evolution has programmed into our mental software
sophisticated, intuitive …mathematic… “Non-zero-sum game
finders” Beinhocker,. E. (2010:269)
We cannot survive, without others – this is a fundamental fact of
life. We need good services, companionship, approval, status,
information and a whole plethora of things we cannot cover
individually in this text, we depend on each other for resources,
and we acquire these through trading and exchange.
In a scene in the 2001 film a beautiful mind “several male
colleagues are discussing a group of women at a bar. There is a
blonde woman and several brunettes. The men agree that the
blonde is the most desirable, but that any one of the brunettes is
better than no woman at all. First, suppose that all the men
devote their full attention to the blonde.
His exact words in the film are”If everyone competes for the
blond, we block each other and no one gets her. So then we all
go for her friends. But they give us the cold shoulder, because no
one likes to be second choice. Again, no winner. But what if none
of us go for the blond. We don’t get in each other’s way, we
don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way we win. That’s
the only way we all get [a girl.]”
As you can see, because they originally were all planning on
pursuing the blonde – its likely that each other would merely get
in the way of each other’s attempt to gain her interest – and she
would feel only slightly interested in any one of them (assuming
her interest is equally divided) thereby neutralizing the efforts of
the men – causing none of them to be successful with her.
“Instead, Nash suggests that the men ought to ignore the blonde
and each should concentrate on a (different) brunette.” As that
way they are simultaneously doing what’s best for the group –
and the best for themselves. (from A Beautiful Mind: The
Shooting Script, Akiva Goldsman, 2002)
Group Formation, Group Structure,
Competition and Psychological Noise
All social relations; whether between love ones, or strangers –
involve power; where one person has dominance, and the other
doesn’t, where you are constantly negotiating resources to get
more of what you want, without diminishing the others abilities
to carry on providing you with those resources.
While at the same time allowing they are trying to increase their
own utility achievement by attempting to diminish your
resources, while at the same time only diminishing them to the
maximum point where they can still carry on the relationship
with you. I.e. you’re still alive and functioning in the way they
would hope and expect.
Many reading this; might think of it as shame to describe human
life in such selfish terms; however; we’ve spent a great deal of
time in this text describing that selfish games don’t pay, that in
order to consider the wider effect of your utility seeking actions
– requires looking at the way others will act in response to your
moves – also its undoubtable that we want to look after and care
for others for somewhat purely altruistic reasons, because we
believe they are beautiful, precious, cute, we’re in love with
them etc. However it must be said that a diamond is also very
beautiful; but we would say that someone who wishes to own a
big diamond is selfish, so why would we not use the same
language to describe wanting to be in love?
The truth is; people don’t just represent one value or quality,
they’ve spent their life amongst constant random occurrences,
and have a plethora of experiences that cannot be put into
words; they’ve compensated all their virtues and vices and
found a kind of equilibrium that allows their existence to
continue functioning – when we value someone we don’t just
judge them on one quality but on the entire behavioural &
cognitive system of the person; and perhaps even account for
their external assets (friendship group, financial situation,
mobility etc.)
For the purpose of simplistic in this section we will look at the
game-theory playoff when two people battle it out to swap value
in a very few categories i.e. creative input, beauty, popularity.
We appreciate that these aren’t the most fascinating human
traits; but these are ones that are relatively easy to understand,
and can be found in every facet of human life.
We all have our own personal standards, customs, beliefs about
all kind of social etiquette, eating habits, the structure of
conversation, what one does on a typical day, how many hours
of sleep are acceptable, how much intellectual work per day,
how much entertainment per day, the structure of friendship
formation; and we indirectly or directly impose our sense of
morality onto others we meet; whether they like it or not.
The people, who are willing to accept your rules and customs,
do so because they have little other choice, the opportunity you
present for them seems so big that the pill they take is
bittersweet – it’s worth it.
You might happily marry someone beautiful even though she is
an air-head, and not consider her lack of intelligence to be an
issue in the marriage. Someone else might be completely
discontent with a partner unless they also work in the same field
of employment; as the benefits of sharing work-related
knowledge & experience on a day to day basis can lead to
further career development.
People will act out to the best of their advantage when dealing
with others, and they will do so always with limited
understanding of what the actions-thoughts of the other is likely
to be; they guess based on their previous experience acting with
similar people or experience with that person.
When two people meet; if one controls a value in a category that
the other seeks; then you could say the value holder has a high
demand for their product, and if no one else can provide it; then
the supply is limited, and the value holder has a monopoly – this
makes the resource very expensive to acquire for the buyer, and
very profitable for the supplier, people do what’s in their best
interest.
Interactions go through different stages of monopoly; sometimes
you might be an extremely intelligent developed individual in
one particular specialism of conversation or interaction, but
completely lacking in another field, so the interaction will swing
between one holding the power, then to the other person
holding the power; where each person in the exchange is gaining
some form of benefit through the exchange.
However; this sharing isn’t really as profitable as we will hope,
both of you win; but in this book we want to achieve specific
goals with people, as a hypnotist when I have someone recall all
the associations for a set of ideas I want portrayed in a targets
mind I need their absolute concentration and dedication to this;
no jokes no playing around, I don’t want them to walk away,
and I need them to precisely understand what I mean, without
altering the idea themselves.
When I tell them what I want them to experience, I don’t want
them taking that value on board and comparing it with another
perspective that they have from their own life, comparing the
idea I present with another counter idea, or different version of
the idea I offer – because this psychological noise will mean that
the idea I offer isn’t fully represented, its crowded with other
unpredicted associations; and the person has a very real sense
that they are choosing their ideas.
In order to gain the absolute attention of someone, I require a
monopoly, that I’m in demand at that moment, the person is
fascinated by my presence, and listening, without thinking about
the next thing they are going to say, where their friends are, are
how pretty their hair looks in case other boys are watching them.
How do we get to this point? In economics someone is said to
have a comparative advantage if they can produce a resource at
a lower cost than anyone else who they trade with. For example
Portugal (where I’m currently writing this sentence from) is very
good at producing wine and Olive Oil – it might cost them
10,000 men a year and 10,000 square miles of land to produce
these resources – whereas Spain might be very good at
producing cloth, costing them 20,000 men and 20,000 square
miles to achieve the amount of output to buy the wine and oils
offered by Portugal – Because Portugal is better at producing
these resources then Spain, and vice versa with regards to Cloth
then rather than each attempting to produce all of their own
resources; they may aswell trade, saving time, space and
valuable resources such as land and man power. Ricardo, D.
(1817)
When every guy in the club desires an attractive girl, then she
has a monopoly in that field – but to view her as having a
monopoly is simply untrue, she only has a monopoly if you’re a
buyer into that particular value. But the moment you say to a
girl “What are you looking for?” or “What’s your interests?”
then suddenly you find that she isn’t looking to specialize in the
field she’s already an avid player in i.e. “looking great” she
wants to get out into something more interesting, now suddenly
she can’t demand a monopolist price for her services ‘looking
great’ – she now feels an inadequate player in the field she
desires.
“We want what we don’t have” – Quote from unknown thinker.
“The problem with people is that they always want more” Quote
from drug-forum.com
Doctors need to control drugs that are highly addictive, or that
can easily kill people who abuse them, because people are
naturally prone to increasing their level of risk quickly –
whatever they start doing, quickly becomes ‘never enough’.
When you’re bargaining with people; they have anchors for
where they see the price at – considering the information they
known based on the probabilities they expect. Sure it’s true that
the girl who is attractive in the club might have control over the
majority of guys there, and therefore can be viewed popular and
high status; but her utility seeking lies somewhere else entirely.
I have a very good friend, who when he goes into a business
meeting he briefly mentions that recently Mariah Carey charged
1.4million night for a show – apparently upon saying this people
say “no I don’t believe it” Which personally I think is amazing
how people have such an instant opinion on it.
Anyway, he mentions that he believes when he says it that he
ends up getting paid more from the negotiation than he would
have expected to make without mentioning the phrase. People
cannot help themselves but consider external information –
psychological noise; and they end up using this noise as a
reference that gives insight to their thoughts – assuming the
thing seems related, and presented roughly within the same time
period.
I used to have a girlfriend who didn’t think much of hypnosis,
despite her seeing me hypnotize hundreds of people (mainly
girls) the girlfriend said to me “they only do what you want
because your good looking” at the time I disagreed, what she
was saying sounded to me like she was saying “They are just
acting, ‘pretending to be hypnotized’ to make you happy’”
which seemed like an insult to my character and experience as I
had been a hypnotist for numerous years before meeting her,
what she was saying seemed to discount my worth.
I thought about this for a few months, we discussed it at great
length, until we came to the mutual agreement that she was
correct. Me being good looking makes me a good hypnotist; Let
me explain why – firstly often when I’m looking my best people
are very open to talk to me, in fact if I peacock i.e. dress to be
seen, look good, and smile although its deemed economically
impossible as the environment is a perfectly competitive
environment, I aim approached. I was born lucky in this
particular specialism. Earlier on in the book when I mentioned
another trainer called Mystery; the first thing he said to me was
“you’re too good looking, that can be a problem”.
My ex was right because there is no clear distinction between
conscious and unconscious, it doesn’t matter why people do
what you want them to do, the fact is they either do it, or they
don’t.
People think your fascinating for kinds of reasons, but the best
people at this use a range of techniques that we shall cover later
in this section; the important thing to hold on to is that you have
unique advantages; you don’t need to be anything like me – and
anything you’re not in life, can be changed providing your
willing to put a great deal of investment into it – probably a lot
more than you expected to invest – but none the less you can
have at least some of what you want.
A domain class – is a class of outcomes (desires) that are
functionally similar in the sense that when you interact with
someone with that quality you at least indirectly gain some of
the value in that domain class that they are a member of –
Everything in life is diminishing in return, in marginal utility.
That if you desire sugar for glucose in the brain for either mental
energy or physical energy – then one coffee might be the perfect
antidote, you really wanted that coffee and would have happily
spent $5 to purchase it, how much would you pay for a second
coffee immediately after – is relative.
It depends is the answer – how much did you need a coffee in
the first place, how much energy are you spending, will glucose
alone be sufficient? and all of this assumed the coffee place had
some form of monopoly – that you couldn’t have gone
somewhere else for a cheaper coffee.
Similarly “If you desire to spend time with a friend, a single
friend might fulfil your need for companionship (I’m not sure
the deeper reasons for companionship, perhaps language
formation, practicing recall of schemata, remembering and
restructuring information into summarized stories?) The
problem lies, if you have two friends, and you’ve already spent
time with one, then you perhaps have already achieved your
goal of companionship; and now have no desire to see the
second friend, even though no friend (in this case) is comparably
more useful in any other field than the companionship function
described.
However suppose “If one friend is a hiking companion and the
other a close confidante, then the two friendships may be in
different domains, and time spent with one friend will have no
effect on the value of the other's companionship.”
Perhaps we could take the example of a job interview – if you go
into a job interview and you give them what they are already
achieving in marginally diminishing utility – i.e. “you know I
think the first candidate we interviewed was the best” because
the first candidate solved the desired problem “we need
someone to perform X function” but comparably when
hundreds of applicants seem to be able to perform X function
then it makes the performance of the function seem less
impressive and valuable – when dealing with someone with
high status – who is in demand then by being the same as
everyone else you are competing with everyone else – and will
likely lose.
If you’re in a bar or nightclub and are looking to join a social
group, i.e. you’re a stranger and your just saying “hi” then you
need to be sure your signally something that the group doesn’t
have but while at the same time signally that you have qualities
that make you fit into the generalized label or category of what
the group is aiming to achieve. Not only that but you need to
connect with the individual players one-to-one as well as the
group.
“As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be
different opinions, so is it that there should be different
experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties
of character, short of (providing there is no) injury to others; and
that the worth of different models of life should be proved
practically, when any one of thinks fit to try them. Mill, S (2005)
Remember to put in the idea about; using therapeutic analysis to
find out the core of someone’s personality; then using these
functions to build value, structure and support.
Our life choices are adaptive, they can be changed. It is for this
reason that psychotherapists & counsellors exist. We build the
world around ourselves using the opportunities we have, to
spontaneously cue and trigger the thoughts & attitudes and
lifestyle we create.
Through meaningful conversation we are prompted to recall
past information, or to anticipate what we want to gain or avoid
in the future – we use others, and things we find in the
environment to bring to mind ideas of decisions to make, and
store memories (schemata) in objects, things, scenarios, people
around us – we tell ourselves “when I see this person I will
remember to tell them about” this gives us a chronological track
over our life, our decisions, a sense of continuity – providing us
with greater ease to make decisions and chose the path of
highest utility by being able to easily consider all the relevant
facts – to anticipate the probability about ‘what is the right thing
to do?’
The idea of Freudian transference & projection is when you
speak to a person, you are speaking to people they remind you
of, and this process can be used to have discussions with people
in your life – who might for whatever reason no longer exist in
your field of communication. It’s a safe way of discussing issues
that might be anxiety provoking if speaking with the person the
communication is meant for.
As a therapist; you are a foundation that allows a stranger to
schematically explore themselves, you can have people explore
deep interpersonal feelings about life, rather than chronological
information (which lacks huge amounts of unique perspective) –
by learning to get to know people – but strategically – for the
purpose of having them explore their esoteric feelings rather
than just their life details – can be an extremely powerful tool in
having people feel that you know about them.
Life is confusing – and underneath our calm; - It’s ok!
Complexion, is a kind of poetry that is crying out for help – its
dreams are dying – and it needs partnership in order to better
prevent disaster; most of us our so detached from our problems,
by not thinking about them for so long; that we can’t even
envisage what we want.
We like to think that our mind is one solid unit – of lots of beliefs
that all connect – that make perfect logical sense, to believe that
our brain is always in consensus.
However the reality is that our brain is usually pretty much in
one big argument –that every time we try to make even the
smallest decision “What drink should I have?” there is arguing
between the little components the little beliefs. – “What price?”,
“What’s the quality like?”, “Which is the best value for money”,
“Which is made in the largest glass?” “Which cocktail has the
most fruit?”, “Does that count towards my five fruit and
vegetables a day?”
“There's something unsettling about seeing the brain as one big
argument. We like to believe that our decisions reflect a clear
cortical consensus that the entire mind agrees on what we
should do. And yet, that serene self-image has little basis in
reality” Jonah Lehrer (2010:204).
The light of their wants and ambitions might come to rise itself;
and from this the person can feel some form of dependency on
you; as they don’t know how to solve their deep search for
meaning in the world – as they feel they cannot achieve it
because despite their specialisms in the fields they’ve become
successful in – they feel they are inadequately meeting their core
unique self.
It always struck me how easy people find it to explore this side
to their personality with a therapist – or a strange guy in a night
club, but how difficult they seem to find it amongst the noise of
day to day living. – Amongst all the noise – while with another
person one can find a kind of peace with themselves.
Have you ever had that feeling – where you’re truly powerful?
That your energy is solid and contained in your mental life – that
your attention is exact and precise – and instead of being at your
desk writing – your perfectly awake and in a nightclub/bar?
Maybe you have? – Well its incredible – everyone is running
around with so much noise; they can’t concentrate on anything;
not even their own thoughts; and in a half intelligent
conversation they can’t handle it – when you feel like this –
people are completely attracted to you; you seem like the coolest
person ever – so contained.
Learning to get to know people; while you’re the calm centre of
the world – giving someone your absolute full attention;
hopefully should cause them to give you their full attention in
return. But remember, don’t bid on the qualities they don’t see as
valuable – discover what will make them know they are truly
alive, and then use that – be that soul, that spirit that they are
looking for; and hold them – although only briefly else they
become accustomed to it.
Amongst the mess, you look like “just another guy” don’t
compete, just win!
There is a frustrating paradox of social function – if you attempt
to join a group and your too good; then you will be seen to be
competing for leadership; and for this reason the leader may
attempt to prevent you from entering the group; and if you don’t
take their request seriously –they may see this as a direct threat
on their livihood and do dirty tactics – this sounds like the stuff
of a nature program ‘the lion and its territory’ or a Sci-Fi movie.
But don’t be surprised if you start stepping on someone’s turf
being the ‘most well rounded charming guy in the world’ that
you end up with a knife in your back or being attacked by 20
guys while you’re walking home – this isn’t the stuff of fantasy,
its life.
Just recently I was with a friend, and I had been in ‘work mode’
for a couple of weeks, so I didn’t seem like the most interesting
of fellows to talk to in the club. Anyway, this friend I trust with
the world. I spoke to a girl and I went into ‘hero mode’ and he
made it very clear that he had decided that I shouldn’t be alive
by the morning.
Of course like anyone I was concerned by this, and being as I
didn’t care that much for the girl I decided to drop my
confidence just to ‘fit in’ – I had no intention of winning, if I did
it would be much more sophisticated than just talking about my
personal history and my ambitions – I would use the desires of
the target, and then match those desires into pathways of success
for the individual.
Building structure, and meaning to a hypothetical future
relationship together. I purposely don’t do that, because I have
no desire for such a future.
It of course is true that not every time you enter a social group
with confidence that they are going to attempt to kill you. But
they might be disinterested in the things you say, in your
presence as a form of defensive strategy to protect their own
position in the group etc. you cannot work with a reluctant
individual who is preoccupied by other concerns – you can’t
have them do anything.
When you enter a social group – usually you’ve got to be pretty
low key – mere expose your way into the group; sly like a snake,
as not to constitute a competitive threat to the structure or nature
of the group. When group members seek to impress each other
with their attractiveness, they enter into a form of indirect
competition with one another.
The common way to prevent this is ‘self-depreciation’ putting
yourself down, gentle jokes about yourself, making jokes about
your history, talent or skills. And also not seeming to compete
for leadership when others reinforce their own authority by
demonstrating their specialist traits; another way that you might
be tested, is they may redefine the purpose of their group; they
might mention “music” and see whether you pick up on the fact
they like music and then accurately continue to expand upon the
music you like – matching to their taste; music is just an obvious
example of a category that people us to define themselves, but
there lots of ways people might reinforce the character of the
group upon your entry, by mentioning a label “Hah, that’s so
crazy!” indicating that craziness is a purpose of the group.
"New acquaintances tend to search in their conversations for
clues that indicate some shared experiences or characteristics
having fought in the war in Europe, coming from the same state
- and they facilitate one another’s search by relating incidents
that reveal their background or opinions “
Most conversations with strangers are built on ‘mere hints’ that
are dropped that indicate someone’s personal brand, or unique
competitive advantages, to which they expect you to explore,
and help in the priming of associative beliefs in their schemata
network; thereby reducing the glucose-hormone cost of them
guiding, recalling, contrasting complex networks of thoughts
themselves – you make it easier for them, and help them guide
through a kind of trip.
An individual might mention someone, then the other
individual might add value to it, which causes the initial
individual to have some related ideas to the initial thereby
creating further value to the original thought – by adding some
form of innovation – causing a kind of evolution of ideas at a
much lower cost than would have been achieved by the person
attempting to explore their own thoughts – a task that most
people find near impossible due to lack of concentration
capabilities.
If player 2 fails to pick up the value of the initial hint, i.e. they
didn’t mention anything related to the concept, it implies that
player 2 knows nothing about the subject; as a schema of
information wasn’t spontaneously activated upon the mention of
the topic specialism. In this circumstance assuming player 1 has
the patience, another hint will be dropped, wrapped up into the
structure of the communication this signal will be offered -
hopefully triggering something in common to communicate
about.
“Individuals who share attitudes and values provide one
another with social support for their opinions, which makes their
association attractive, particularly if minor variations in their
orientations, contribute a challenge to their discussion of the
issue." Blau, P. (1964)
The important issue here is the need for our ideas to be
challenged, to provide further discussion, insight, to develop
further competences, and allow the ease and continuation of
recall for the topic area; through rehearsal and practice – in order
to have our ideas challenged we need an adequate opponent,
unfortunately most people we meet are incapable at providing
this service. You the reader of this book are going to be an
exception.
For us to succeed in our lives, we need to differentiate, to use our
unique capabilities, our insight into things in different ways as
our advantage that gives us an absolute monopoly against our
competitors in that arena. For example “ the fact that a person is
an American and that he is opposed to communism; hardly
makes him a particularly attractive associate in this country,
since attributes or values shared by virtually everyone do not
differentiate anyone." Blau, P. (1964:39)
The insight gained from that discussion won’t add anything. The
time and energy spent discussing with this individual will
represent a cost, not a gain… assuming that their wasn’t another
purpose for the discussion, that it was a lead into a more
interesting topic area where the individual in question has value
you wish to acquire – that the communism discussion was just
‘small talk’ before you got onto more important matters.
The reason we don’t usually hold strong viewpoints – although
we nearly all recognize that those with strong viewpoints
(distinct opinions) are usually seen to be attractive individuals –
is we recognize our own fear of antagonizing others and being
rejected by them for having such a distinctive trait.
For this reason usually when we meet people we reduce
ourselves to subtle hints about our inner uniqueness, our
distinctive competencies. The unfortunate thing is throughout
our lives, the lack of expressing ourselves, developing our
opinions causes them to rot and die – until there is nothing
distinctive left about us, we become as lifeless as everyone else.
When aligning yourself with a social group - an individual drops
hints and clues to assess commonality; and doesn't real about
their inner core; they check whether you would understand.
When joining a social group, in addition to the high confidence
‘hero position’ – which can be seen as a threat to leadership or an
attempt to dominant another into submission, there is the self-
depreciating strategy – which if you follow you might be
deemed too much of a cost for the group and rejected, you might
try to niche and differentiate yourself by developing specialism
in one topic area and then purposely self-depreciate yourself in
other aspects of life to gain acceptance.
Another strategy as a newcomer when attempting to join an
established group might be to flatter their hosts, it should always
be noted though that because the insecure newcomer is entering
an established group they will have to constrain their personality
to fit in – because if they expose themselves they may be judged
as different or completive and rejected. However if they are so
indifferent and lack distinction they will be rejected, as the group
will likely be fully formed and confident in their outward
expression – and by contrast you as the newcomer seem lifeless.
STATUS: Charm, wit, self-depreciation, and
one-upmanship
“To be impressive enough for people to cling to your presence,
you must infer which of your qualities would do well in a given
group, and adapt your conduct accordingly” Blau, P. (1964)
Remember the games you played as a kid? I do it - was
incredible; the sophistication involved at anticipating what other
players in the game are doing to try to outsmart you and win the
game. When I was young my friends and I, would spend weeks
just sitting in a large field devising the coolest games possible;
the ones that would spark the most competitive and insightful
thought as you try to predict the moves of others.
I’ve had this feeling of an adult of adult life been a bit dull – that
everyone you meet isn’t quite as impressive as you would
hope….
However; not all of adult life is completely absent of game like
behaviour; just think back to the last time you played a game –
maybe it was like a board game such as RISK, Chess, Connect 4.
Or card games – like Texas Hold Em’ Up poker – when playing
such games you learn to anticipate the actions of other players
and develop more sophisticated strategies after you learn the
behaviour and predict the ambitions of the other players. You
also make the assumption that the other players are using the
best of their cognitive abilities to try to work you out in return –
as you alter your strategy to take this into account.
Wow; that’s something closer to what life is supposed to be
about right? But even that is child’s play; kids can do it. Why do
we as adults reduce ourselves to keeping our personality so tied
down that we suddenly aren’t allowed to play games with
people we meet, do we avoid playing games for risk of losing
and being a sore loser – or not to offend another player when we
display our intellect and defeat them in a kids game – I guess we
must.
You might think that it’s just children’s games that display this
lack of intellect, planning and strategy for – that perhaps when it
comes to our work or social lives that we are more strategic? It’s
surprising that we can put some time and effort into mastering a
game or a skill defeating their opponents when it’s in the context
of a game – for example in the computer game – call of duty on
the PlayStation 3 - But when it comes to more important matters
like building a relationship with a stranger, or meeting someone
for the purpose of hearing about job opportunities or building
sexual attraction; that we seem to act in the absence of any
reason or logic what so ever.
In conversation, people regularly reveal their intentions, admit
priceless information, state what they think about others,
without carefully considering the consequences of what they are
doing. Goffman, E. (1961:26)
In different groups we are required to be different people- In one
group it might be important to be athletic, in another artistic
talent; The requirement for impressive – changes from group to
group, venue to venue, street to street, night to night. If you’re
going to reap the benefits of multiple social circles – find the job
opportunities, find the creative people etc. you’re going to have
to be good at inferring what peoples intentions are, and offering
them some value in return – your multiple experiences from the
many social groups might allow you some benefits as you share
unlikely information and experiences between them – creating
value through innovation.
Every field in life has ways of indicating who is of the highest
status; in this section we are going to focus on how not to look
like a ‘jack of all trades’ as we switch between multiple social
groups – but instead look like a ‘well rounded man of the
world’, someone charming and sophisticated – we need to
communicate status by outsmarting our peers, while at the same
time building rapport and using flattery in order to dispel their
competitive concerns. This section we focus on becoming a
Gentleman.
How is status communicated? – Goffman – a social exchange
theorist solved this problem with his theory of role distance. He
outlines a general format for impressing others. In short you
complete a specialism your component believes they have
acquired mastery within while performing another more
complex task, in order to mock them, but while flattering,
charming, and sharing common experiences & understanding
with them. This is an elegant solution to the previously outlined
problem of whether to be too confident, or too self-depreciating
when joining a group.
As with this solution; you neither offend nor do you decline
yourself from being elected for the position of leadership. For
example; consider the problem of children learning how to use a
merry go round – the young children around the age of two
finds the movement of the merry go round too threatening and
cries until taken off.
While a child at four can master the challenge, they are fully
absorbed into the task and take it seriously. However school age
children, are no longer intent on riding the merry go round – but
instead fool around on it, they swing, hang upside down, jump
off and on while it spins.
They do this not only because they no longer find the experience
of riding the merry go round a challenge or rewarding; and
therefore make the task more complex in order to gain
enjoyment and to show to themselves and others that the merry
go round poses no meaningful challenge.
By riding the merry go round in this flamboyant fashion shows
both psychological distance, and distance in status from the
previous ‘baby’ role of their former self and the other riders of
the merry go round. Blau, P. (1964:40)
It is not just kids who use this kind of ‘mind reading’ where they
assess each other’s computational abilities in order to assess who
is more dominant, who is worthy of leadership by their sheer
ability to out-compute the other candidates for election. It’s an
unwritten rule in all social exchanges – that we all sign up too;
when we see someone who seems tense and deeply involved in
a task we automatically recognize that this shows the limits of
the individuals computational abilities are being reached. Blau,
P. (1964)
I’ve spent a great deal of time with magicians, with a venue they
don’t know the social dynamics of, they walk in cautious and
conservative. If they don’t see a ‘social in’ to break into a social
group to perform to them and win them over – then assuming
the magician is not being paid for this, he will leave complaining
that the venue is not for him.
However; when he has won over a small audience, convincing
them that he is good at magic, because he is really intelligent,
because his ‘hands are quicker than your eye’ or ‘because he can
distract and control your attention’ then you begin to be won
over by the lies and hold that this person really his someone of
status – you assume that just because he has a comparative
advantage as a magician, that he must be superior in all fields –
and at that moment, he is powerful and has a monopoly over
you.
This is about the time that you hear the magician’s ego, their
charisma comes out, and they will start telling jokes that imply
they are clever, sometimes making jokes & banter about their
audience. And will approach the riskier more competitive social
groups now that they have the security of being able to turn back
towards their loyal supporters if rejected. At this point their
charisma their ego, might be enough to allow them into these
more difficult social groups; because they communicate that they
are winners, and can back it up by a single example of
specialism.
In all fields, these kind of flamboyances seem to come out in
order to be able to exert influence of large groups of people; for
example “an important surgeon will often joke during an
operation to show skill and superiority over the other doctors, to
show that the task isn’t taxing or difficult for him. This shows he
can perform the fairly difficult tasks with ease; giving confidence
to himself, showing status to the group etc.
There was a series of television adverts in the UK showing the
dangers of alcohol – in short friends would jump around
comparing their abilities to do things like jump over walls or talk
to girls, until finally one of them climbs up some scaffolding on
the side of a building, falls off and dies.
To continue the example of the magician or mind reader –
consider the circus artist, for example, “who strains every muscle
and nearly fails before he finally succeeds arouses great awe in
his audience, but the one who performs his difficult act with
ease, as if it were mere child’s play for him, also commands
profound admiration.” Blau, P. (1964:41)
Whether it demonstrates higher status to make a task look
difficult, or whether to perform a complex task while looking
like you don’t have a care in the world – depends on what type
of performance is occurring; for example in the case of mind-
reading – being a mentalist – the audience doesn’t realize it
could be hard to read people’s minds, they have no method of
assessing the difficulty, so to drag the performance out and
make it seem more of a struggle makes it more dramatic – the
manifestation of tense concentration and strain increases the
audiences admiration.
Whereas in hypnotism the opposite is true, because the audience
realize the difficulty in having others do what we want, being a
master of it i.e. doing it quickly, and proficiently while seeming
without a care in the world – makes it seem even the more
impressive – you believe you are witnessing a master.
Since Las Vegas March 2011 I’ve been regularly performing
hypnosis blindfolded – to which I was the first documented
hypnotist to do this, and being passed a subject to be hypnotised
as selected by the audience, who I have no idea what they look
like, what they are doing, or what they are thinking – I receive
no input of such things through my visual field.
I’ve had criticisms from other hypnotists, that it doesn’t prove
anything, hypnosis mainly uses your communication, and not
seeing the participant shouldn’t make a difference and therefore
isn’t any more impressive, instead it’s just silly.
The truth is, as a trainer of other hypnotists, I have a
responsibility to communicate status, and command respect.
And in order to do this requires an instantly recognizable way to
a large audience as to why I’m proficient within this field.
“The world is not enough” – is a phrase that the fictitious
character British Secret Agent; James Bond has wrote on his
families coat of arms. The phrase derives from a Latin meaning;
but few are sure of its meaning – It’s suspected to mean “we
have the ability to change our future”, “but it will never be
enough, we always want more”
Out with the old, and in with the new. People need to be
challenged, to experience a sense of risk. Once you’ve had a
small bet at gambling, often many people end up finding
themselves spend their life savings, some spokespersons say that
the drug “Cannabis” is a gateway drug, that you take that and
that’s it, you’re on the slippery slope down through class B’s,
class A’s – and when you run out of money through the
expensive Class A’s you’ll be on the heroin, and the crack
cocaine.
Although these are phrases often touted by freaking squares -
they are not completely wrong; life is a slippery slope – we need
differentiation, innovation, insight leads to foresight. Any
activity, be it a game, a sport, ones work – requires constant
progression, challenge; we want to see that we are becoming
closer to self-actualisation – a full realizing of our potential.
Everything contains a risk; we cannot predict the future, and we
are competing against a vast number of people – we need to
work at the very brink of our probable limits, to achieve the most
from the potential opportunities we think are coming. Whether
this means driving at 120mph down the motorway and having
no idea what’s coming over the horizon – to feel as if we can do
our best at an unpredictable future, fly down a mountain on a set
of ski’s, or attempt to outdo the casino on a roulette wheel – it
seems that we don’t even care if the future is completely
impossible to predict.
We want the most amount of utility we can get, and we want it
now! What makes these things exciting is the threat of failure,
the size of the potential success – But we don’t like things to be
too dangerous; We might choose a mountain side while skiing
that is steeper than we would usually like – but we would not
like one that contains a huge ravine that we might potentially
have to jump in an emergency – because the stakes are just too
high; a challenging stimulating activity can quickly turn into an
unpleasant threat.
We naturally admire people who take risks, because the motion
of progressing towards opportunity while facing great adversity;
shows qualities, that we would like to develop for ourselves in
our own lives. A well rounded-man; the charming spy – is bold,
challenging, confrontational, but while never being insulting; his
competitiveness can never be truly seen as an attack because he
treats you with respect, flattering your character, understanding
your concerns, while helping you explore the innards of your
psyche; beliefs, finding flaws in your debating skills providing
you with greater innovation to your thought; and for this you
humbly surrender.
A social group will pretty much always accept someone of this
nature; because he is sufficiently challenging; even if he doesn’t
provide any meaningful innovation he will provide some
interesting discussion and perspective. But the ideas presented
must only reflect slight disarrangements from the initial concept
of interest to the group; if the ideas presented detracted too
much then they might not seem connected and the people in the
group will feel as if they have no rapport with the speaker, and
we label him and outsider. Having an interesting partner who
takes your ideas, and feeds them back to you with a smirk; with
input you couldn’t possibly of thought of before – animates your
spirit, and makes the social intercourse something of a sport – it
becomes soulful and exciting.
For the next few pages we are going to focus on why delivering
respect – is not the best strategy when attempting to form
relationships with strangers. There are various complexities
associated with the power discrepancies that signals of respect
creates; this can be “conceptualized as a series of interlocking,
mixed games (mixed strategy), in which group members have
some common and conflicting interests. “ (Peter Michael Blau:
exchange & power)
Most of the groups we approach in social life; have at least two
other players in them. If we impress only one member of the
group (B) then for every increase in respect attained from (B) the
more displeasure is caused to (C) who experiences a cost as the
companionship desire in (B) is being spent – thereby destroying
(C)’s ability to bargain and exchange with (B) temporarily.
Therefore when we interact with groups; we usually recommend
to talk to all players; and flattery, and charm each player
individually at least for a time being – this way all group
members simultaneously play the roles of exchange, and no
member loses.
However, every individual member can easily act unimpressed
by your attempts to integrate yourself into the group; thereby
withholding your respect, and your offer for the position of
leadership – because they realize that if you have everyone in the
group on your side; even though it seems all nice polite and
casual and respectful – that this would give you a competitive
advantage over the group – thereby allowing you to dictate your
rules (to impose costs on the group) once you obtain leadership.
You will rarely get an entire group on your side; your chances of
“winning unilateral respect” are dictated by mathematical game
theory. If each individual both you and the player in the group
“Choses the strategy that allows him to withhold expressions of
respect” then you both end up with the least preferential choice
– no relationship. However If both you and the other express
respect for each other; the peer relationship becomes established.
During an the beginnings of an interaction with a group of two
or more people – the group members may regularly look at one
another as to determine each other’s strategy; because if one
refuses to offer A respect; and the other one does; then the
ranking of the group would be; the refusal of respect would be
the leader; and you would subordinates with the other player
who offered you respect. However this ultimately would lead to
a democratic problem – because now you A would have an
equal power relationship with this player – and you two could
potentially overthrow the leader.
Therefore it’s important that groups act as a team, and try to
anticipate each other’s decisions by reading each other’s signals
when a stranger attempts to interact with the group.
The worst case scenario for you; is that both of the players in the
group are extremely socially savvy; and realize that providing
they work as a team using their communication, signally, and
exchange opportunities they could easily make you an external-
sub member of their social group; and use this to acquire any
value you hold – which they can then use in order to propel
themselves utility wise into a group that has higher entry costs.
Girls in clubs can be extremely good at this; for example; think of
a scenario where you are talking to two very beautiful girls; who
seem polite and nice to you; but seem busy as if they could have
to leave at any moment – that they need good reason to stay,
they are thirsty and need a drink and are going to go back to
their male friends as they have a bottle of vodka; a group which
will surely not accept you – by their clever teamwork they’ve
managed to have you buy them a drink – however the
opportunity cost for them if they were drinking merely a cheap
cocktail vs. the expensive vodka means your mathematically
required to buy them the vodka in order to continue the
relationship – however the smartest bit about the story; is that
the whole thing was fabricated – there really was no ‘guy friends
with the vodka’ – but now that they have more power they
could use this to bargain membership of such a group.
Hopefully this makes it clear how to integrate yourself with a
group and work your way towards the position of leadership –
we will cover further on in this section ways of using charm and
flattery in order to avoid delivering direct respect as to avoid
becoming a subordinate of the group.
“Group members do not decide on strategies a priori without
any knowledge of the strategies of overs, but they are in
continual interaction and recurrently modify their behaviour in
response to the preceding actions of other members” Blau, P.
(1964)
In British folklore; the upper classes in the 1700’s – 1970’s were
believed to be particularly challenging, debatable opponents in
ordinary looking conversation – where they for fun would pick
apart your story; while displaying status and poise.
Stephen Potter; a 1950’s writer and BBC presenter dubbed this
kind of behaviour with the term ‘one-upmanship’ (Potter, S.
:1997) which he defined as the practice of successfully outdoing
a competitor; treating social intercourse as a kind of sport; that in
British conversations you’re a kind of gamester, a man about the
world; that if you’re not outsmarting your opponent, your being
outsmarted.
It’s a generalisation to say that all upper class people were like
this; but, there’s some truth that when your regularly finding
yourself in encounters were you typically outrank those around
you in ways addition to class – intellect, wit, dress sense,
manners, etc. and the people your typically surrounded by don’t
like you i.e. your employees in the workhouse. Etc.
Then it becomes practical to be arrogant; “sticking to your face
regardless of whether the encounter you’re in supports it…
however, those surrounding this gentleman may highly value
his opinion; and if he witnesses them being discomforted by his
comments.. then he may detract them, becoming embarrassed
and apologizing”.
Some people you meet are extremely arrogant; they seem to say
whatever pops into their ego regardless of the discomfort and
expense of those around them – this could be because of drug
abuse, alcohol abuse, stressed personality type, or some other
cause, their lack of awareness to consider, or understand the
signals that others use to portray their discomfort, due to their
intense inability to focus on the broader picture other than their
life concerns makes it impossible to notice when they are being
arrogant.
These extremely arrogant people without the ability to feel
empathy for others – might be seen to be strong leadership
material – believed to possess ‘a well-rounded-challenging”
charming character that we outlined – however the audience in
this case is mistaken. A real man judges his target audience,
assesses his message, and purposely outdoes them while
keeping them smiling throughout.
"Modesty is due to a fear of incurring the well-merited envy and
contempt which pursues those who are intoxicated by good
fortune: It is a useless display of strength of mind; and the
modesty of those who attain the highest eminence is due to a
desire to appear even greater than their position" Rochefoucauld,
F. (1963)
Before you enter a conversation, if you are going to play this
character of the ‘worldly-charmer’ you need to be ready to have
you wit-level turned up to the max. The slightest mistake could
be taken to be a sign of weakness - even if you are the only one
who notices, it might mean that you feel embarrassed and want
to retract your statements.
When you make a slight mistake in an interaction where you are
supposed to be the worldly-wise Gentleman, you and others
may become embarrassed; not because of the size of the blunder
– but instead because for a moment no one knows whether to
laugh or to wait for the train of thought to be re-established; this
surprise might make people look away, or laugh; and if the
charmer takes offense to this, then people will pick up on this
and the Gentleman’s will fall from his throne.
[SCRIPT - From the movie 'THE TOURIST'] Elise: Invite me to
dinner, Frank? Frank Taylor: What? Elise: [gives him a look]
Frank Taylor: Would you like to have dinner? Elise: Women
don't like questions. Frank Taylor: Join me for dinner. Elise: Too
demanding. Frank Taylor: Join me for dinner? Elise: Another
question. Frank Taylor: [thinks for a moment] I'm having dinner,
if you'd care to join me. Elise: [smiles at him] [/script]
To show you how the game behaviour we’ve outlined in morally
sound; and not the same as being a dominant bully we shall
describe the behaviour of a bully – to insult others, have jokes at
their expense, to drive others out of the situation, and from the
group. Fact is if you did this, the person your being rude to
would likely just back down, disappear from the group, and
group would likely not say anything; at worst they’ll just
become despondent; it’s unlikely they’ll do the same behaviour
to you because you demonstrated such strength; this is why
bullies get used to their success and they’ll behaviour becomes a
habit – because although it’s not socially reinforced its not
disapproved of.
In the case of what we are saying where we are predicting,
challenging, and out doing our opponents for leadership in a
social circumstance we are looking to deliver successful insults
but delivered as part of the “expectable flow of conversation, A
successful insult is one that is done within the expectable flow of
conversational moves, inserting double meanings so that on one
level it remains appropriate, Put-downs and one-upmanship are
successful when the onus for breaking the smooth playing out of
the interaction goes to the recipient, who incurs dishonour either
by being unable to shoot back a smooth and appropriate reply,
or by breaking the frame entirely with an angry outburst.”
(Goffman’s Model of Conflict; Collins,R. (2005).
Individual advantage – gaining a monopoly in social interactions
requires being incredibly adaptive – you must find the normal
rituals of cohesion, use of respect, situational politeness and start
pushing the boundaries out; using the very brink of what is
allowed to progress towards bargaining for the advantages you
require to increase your power – our ego, and unique capacities
need to used constructively displaying adaptive traits to
understand, address, and offer solutions for the goals of the
group and its members; while bargaining for one’s selfish
desires.
Ok; I know what you’re thinking – you get it, you get that you
need to be impressive – right? That makes sense; but how do you
keep it; I mean the idea is to get people into the palm of our
hands and do something with it? Relations of power create
dependence – where the actors become mutually dependent on
you; this inequality in power distribution; allows the “costs that
person A can impose on person B” –these costs might just be the
level of attention you impose and the commitment you except to
focus on the ideas you present.
Remember in escalation of commitment theory – that if someone
is gradually increasing the amount of expense; the cost; the
investment they put into a project they are more inclined to
invest further than they are to quit the project entirely – even if it
looks like the project will fail.
This means; B will be unable to consider the alternative
opportunities available to him or her simply because their
opportunity cost considering the level of investment in this
relationship makes it impossible to leave – not only that but our
aim as a Charming Gentlemen is to deliver actual value; to be
beneficial to others but while doing so imposing a high cost;
through this we gain our advantages – friendship, political
support, etc. Linda, M (1981:29)
One of the advantages in gaining control of resources that B has
access to; is that you may be able to gain hold of their external
values in addition to the values that they hold internally; for
example you may be able to gain access to their friendship
groups, perhaps their Facebook social networks for the purpose
of advertisement of your products; and other things such as
being able to target and identify their resourceful friends and
then re-focus your attack onto those and their networks.
Gain interest from strangers in highly
competitive markets.
Once you’ve demonstrated some unique quality, you will have
attention from those who are seeking new opportunity in search
of higher value.
It’s the belief of ‘sexual capitalism’; that there are two types of
interactions between people. There are the interactions where
attention has been assigned between two strangers for some
kind of arranged time period. And the circumstances where
someone doesn’t really know what they are placing their
attention on, because there is too much competition and they
don’t have a particular assigned motivation or goal, and
therefore have not engaged in a process of assignment in order
to meet that utility.
Or it might be that someone is on a particular assigned attention
path, and that they don’t have the space to compute some
addition entity to place their attention on. In this chapter we will
cover the latter of these two scenarios. Why in many group
scenarios can we not gain any interest from strangers? And how
to gain interest in these highly competitive scenarios
The core to building a strategy for gaining the attention of
strangers in situations where attention is highly competed for is
to bare in mind the principle that all economic agents want
value, particularly value that shares commonality with their own
desires, passions and motivations, and things that are unique,
and appear to be in demand; Tend to be valuable..
If you can imagine, what it’s like to adopt a child, you originally
make the commitment, meet the child and overtime of watching
it grow and develop as a result of your efforts, you care about it
and eventually love it. This is how all relationships build, they
begin with the most minute of participation. And then they can
progress into complete commitment.
This philosophy allows us to understand how people in busy
nightclubs/bars (where spare attention is scarce) interpret who is
valuable and who isn’t and then using this we can change the
way value is perceived.
The way we will achieve this is by developing unique
characteristics that make us stick out and appear valuable to
onlookers. Such large quantities of people often causes impact
on the play of attention; we can assume that If people are
naturally always seeking the most beneficial option, but are
bewilded with infinite but yet similar choices, then they have
little choice but to divide their investment in the choices by
infinity, and therefore place no investment on either opportunity
presented to them or a minimum amount.
Our recommendation within such circumstances moves back to
the business strategies advised by Michael Porter about
developing unique qualities, and the marketing strategies that
cite ‘frequency of exposure’, ‘duration of exposure; and the like
as potential sources of ensuring that you attributed greater
attribution of value than your competitors within scenarios
where you would-otherwise be ignored.
I constantly hear about guys going into nightclubs and not
knowing why they can’t gain any interest from a girl all night.
When I witness these guys, they are circling around the girl on
the dance floor who has twenty other guys hitting on here, doing
the exact same thing they are doing, damaging their own ego,
and preparing to go home and spend the night bashing
themselves up for their silly mistake, only to make the same
mistake the following week.
This girl simply doesn’t have the time to interpret which guy out
of the lot of you is the most valuable and therefore the most
benefit to her, let alone all the other opportunities outside of the
club in the rest of her social life.
Meeting strangers isn’t easy! People have too much
communication noise competing for their attention; they have
their own lives to consider, the noise of the environment, the
noise of lost opportunity (opportunity cost) as they could be
speaking to someone else. This is why the best advice other
authors offer is to isolate the target i.e. find a quiet place to speak
to strangers after you meet them; for this reason it’s often being
suggested that bars and nightclubs are poor social venues to
meet people; that it would be better to spend more time with;
tourists, café’ goers, etc. who find it easier to pay attention to
your ideas.
It all depends on what you want to achieve; but in my view, all
the fun, exciting people; are out at night; and there inhibitions
are way lower; every environment has its own unwritten rules of
what’s acceptable behaviour – and the fact of the matter is, at
night, in bars and clubs you can be whoever you want to be, you
can act however you want and its socially acceptable.
If we are going to choose nightclubs (a highly competitive
environment) as an example of how to meet people; then we
need to be sure to properly explain the dynamics of the situation
in the tone of the framework we’ve outlined in this book. The
question we are asking is; “How in this noisy crammed
competitive environment where gaining someone’s attention is
so tricky can we be expected to influence the most in demand
agents?”
In magical performance we are often afforded the luxury of
people being willing to be entertained, they are sitting down
ready, or standing around aware that a magician is going to
perform on them this evening. Even in street hypnotism we
typically talk to people who are sitting outside, have some kind
of time available. We need to be aware that in seduction our goal
is two part; I) Be able to isolate agent (whether they are pre-
isolated or we built social value to take them) and II) to hold
attention when we isolate them.
This argument can help us understand why hypnotists tend to
struggle to hypnotize a 100% of people. Because the results
depend on the situation in which the agent is selected. In street
hypnosis, you request that someone’s time is allocated to you, to
engage in a process, you also frame that it will be outside of their
control. Providing someone follows these steps, then they will be
hypnotized (I rarely use inductions, conversational has always
been my thing).
The way we get others to activate a concept in their heads; is the
easy part. For example we could place the idea in a girls head
that 'I really fancy him” then according to the theory outlined in
the neurology section of the book we have a method for
achieving this i.e. 'having her activate the schemas associated
with fancying someone, and in particular - me.
The only reason she won't do this is because she will resist your
attempt based on the very fact that she has no commitment to
you, and has other opportunities in her life to consider and thus
has never given you her full attention. Also if she did agree to
pretend for a moment that was true, she'd probably be playing
along and might resist by imagining all the ways in which you’re
not attractive, in order to give herself a less biased perspective.
This is all a very well and good theory, 'that you can someone
covertly place the idea into a girls head that she fancies you'
however there is the problem, that’s this: Welcome to life. You’re
the tiniest little grain of sand on an endless beach of grains.
When we attempt to speak to a hot girl in a competitive
environment (where lots of guys are fighting for her attention)
then without any way of getting out of this perfect market
failure then we are not going to close her.
In fact, it goes one step further, her preconceptions about what
her life should be like, her mobile phone, Facebook,
preconceptions about what makes a guy attractive, are all
opportunities begging for her attention that she has placed more
value on than you Mr Grain Of Sand. (source: Wikipedia ‘perfect
competition’)
Without a method, a plan on which agents to target and select
for seduction then just approaching a girl in a nightclub will
most likely result in a cold blank refusal, if not a slap. There
won't be an opportunity to have her imagine she fancies you,
you won't even get a moment to utter a word. It’s for this reason
that we need some kind of process of selecting who we speak to.
Clearly those girls who have a lot of guys hitting on them, or
seem preoccupied in their minds cannot be used for our little
hypnotic experiment. If you spend all night hitting on girls who
are competed for you’re going to go home very frustrated at
your inability to pull girls.
Providing their isn’t any preconception frames, about what’s
valuable to them, about who’s valuable, what goals they have
defined in their life. Expected physical traits of the person
attempting to seduce them, then they will comply. However all
of these productivity pathways are often activated without
having someone temporary suspend their disbelief and agree to
play along with you for a time being.
People say; “Vince….Wouldn’t it be great if, someone could just
point out a girl in the crowd and say ‘make her cluck like a
chicken’ and you could” Under certain circumstances, people’s
attention is competed for by so many other sources.
People who know me think I hypnotize everyone I meet, this
simply isn’t true, I work very hard to pick agents. If someone
pointed out a subject and said “hypnotize that person there…” I
would go through a specific procedure to defy the odds of you
can only hypnotize 1 in 5 people rule. . I would always argue
that the majority of success with hypnosis comes down to set up,
the way you manage and select subjects yet this is something
that is never talked about in hypnosis training courses and
books.
Many who know of me as a hypnotist, magician will be
surprised by me saying this as it seems from my videos and
when you’ve seen me that I seem to engage audiences and have
them comply to my requests that quickly seems to result in them
believing, hallucinating anything I ask of them.
However, this is an optimistic oversimplification of the process
that I engage in to select subjects… the truth is, in the majority of
my interactions that result in someone becoming hypnotized I
met them outside in smoking areas, terrace areas, in front of the
club or in the chill out section of the club. The subject was sitting
there, waiting for something interesting to happen and wasn’t
fighting off guys, girls, stepping on their shoes, or spilling drinks
over their outfit every few seconds. They agreed to chat to me,
and then they agreed that I could borrow their attention for a
time to show them something cool, motivating or interesting.
In the cases where I seemed to find bar-staff, bouncers, party
goers in the noisy nightclub who got hypnotized this occurred
because I might have talked to everyone and announced I was a
hypnotist and noticed who actually gave me the time of day to
really explain myself rather than just ignoring me, or perhaps
they saw me playing with a deck of playing cards, or performing
a trick or hypnosis on someone else and they looked interested
when I did this, essentially giving me an indicator of interest,
and then I would ask this person to place their attention on me
for a moment, to which the person consented and then we
continued to do either magic or hypnotism.
Whether it’s training guys who have been studying how to get
girls and practicing in the field, or hypnotists & magicians who
are trying to get people to feel fascinated, I constantly am told
“She just ignores me?” or “do you ever find that you just can’t
get the hot girls to pay attention to you?” or that “You can’t
hypnotize in noisy environments”.
All of these moans and groans are down to being unable to
engage your audience. To grab hold of that initial wedge of
attention, of interest in your presence and turn it into something
greatly more impressive. Most of the time, rather than a problem
with the actual hypnotic technique It’s a personality problem
between hypnotist and subject, or a venue problem in the sense
that there are too many people competing a agents attention.
These guys are not necessarily wrong to moan; nightclubs are a
nightmare for trying to get attention and have an assigned
portion of time with any particular girl you think is attractive.
This is why using a standard ‘hit or miss’ hypnotic approach
isn’t going to get the girl.
In a hectic environment a persuasion approach would have to
look entirely different compared to the persuasion approach you
would use door-to-door sales, in a retail outlet, a therapy room,
or a stage hypnosis show. Because in hectic environments the
engagement with the subject might be fleeting, you might only
have a few moments, fragments of attention.
We have shown that people’s motivations are driven by a quest
for higher utility, for value, but this is thwarted by their lack of
computation abilities. That people use quick fixes, such as social
norms, repetition of values, anchoring of values, in order to
make judgments within a time frame.
We sacrifice, we take the information we can to attempt to build
a map of the world. Beinhocker: (2007) our attention is guided by
the expected utility received, deducing the competing
opportunities, discounted (Risk) by the probability of achieving
the expected utility. That is to say that if an opportunity you
presented, seemed to offer enough value then it would be
irrelevant of all the other competition and the costs on her part
as the rewards would be so great.
That is to say that people don’t really know where opportunities
that benefit their lives are hidden, they use quick fix judgments
to make decisions. Like how in demand an item seems to be, like
how unique an item looks etc. We draw causal links
assumptions from causal-data-sets amongst incomplete
data(primed variables, short time, unfamiliar territory). Then
these values are used to trigger an action or thought that is
issued in the executive processing within the pre-frontal lobes;
which then triggers various associations in the impulsive-
semantically-associative parts of the brain.
No one is going to follow our instructions or suggestions if you
don’t have that slightest glimmer of fascination from them, of
interest and attention from them that you can later expand upon.
And if they believe your intent is anything other than a ‘game’ or
a process that benefits them, they will be unwilling to engage in
the process.
And thereby recall the opposing associations to the ones that you
offer…. Unless of course someone has all the time in the world,
and is willing to try something different, but it’s extremely
unlikely that you find someone with no other competitive
stresses bidding for their attention; ‘like work in the morning’,
‘saving money’, ‘planning chores’, ‘that guy their seeing’,
‘expectations of what guy they deserve’ etc.
Gaining someone’s attention or interest even in the mildest form
is always the first step. As shown in a study of post-it-notes.
When a random number was written on a post-it-note, it caused
participants to use that number in their answers to questions.
This significantly increased when attention was paid to the
number for just a second.
1. (Be unique) How to develop the charisma of
a performer.
The beginning of creating value always comes from the
comparison between yourself and others. Even if one person in
the world was similar to you, it would divide the price you
could sell yourself at in half.
In the economics chapter of this book, Michael Porter outlined
that in order to dominate a marketplace (i.e. to receive the most
benefit) we need to differentiate from our competition in a way
that they can’t mimic. This is the same for creating social
attention. If we want to be noticed over everyone else, this
means dressing differently, not just randomly different, but
difficult to achieve different. We need to produce a character, a
clear brand in the mind of our audiences. That means cleverly
owning our character, it all fitting together in some coherent
format that makes sense in our audience’s minds.
By being different, when we greet people in a venue, they will
clearly remember us for next time we see them. This will allow
us stick out as a primed feature in everyone's minds yet they
struggle to know each other. As we will be the easiest person for
them to recall their minds will naturally run towards us, for
whom to look for to make decisions, and to feel attraction. Like
Seth Godin’s purple cow (Godin, S. (2003), when you’ve seen
mile after mile of fields full of cows even a slightly different cow
is boring… What truly is amazing is remarkable, will make you
sit up in your seat and go “WOW” is a purple cow. That’s what
we are trying to become.
“We often don't realize that our attitude toward something has
been influenced by the number of times we have been exposed
to it in the past... in one study the more frequently a person's
face was flashed on a computer screen…The more subjects came
to like that person in a later interaction” Cialdini, R. (2007).
When you've built a recognizable character when you enter a
venue you will notice people who look at you and already seem
to want to talk to you.
How do you build character? Well, let’s give an example that
way we can explore, Imagine; you really want to get famous!
You get your big break for one night only you’re a central
character in a popular soap opera. Next day, you wake up you
want to get famous off the back of this, and you want people to
come up-to you in the street and applaud your previous night’s
performance, what would you do? Perhaps, you could wear the
same outfit you wore in the show, and act in the same manner,
and hopefully someone will come and ask for an autograph.
This is how to build a character that people immediately
recognize, you take on board the features on which people use to
define you and you exaggerate them. Part of our character, is not
defined only by ourselves, but by the company we appear to
keep, therefore 'name-dropping' often works!
When humans interpret the world, they see symbols that they
recognize from previous learning’s, they use symbols about you,
to icon-a-nize you. The more easily people identify you, the
more they will remember, and see you as memorable and
likeable.
Most books on persuasion cover body language and confidence
saying that these are important things to have. No where
throughout this text have we told you just to be confident. If you
closely analyze the consistency of this book you will find that no
where does it allude to such states existing, or any emotional or
psychological state for that matter.
The fact is there is no difference in the brain from a confident
person to a non-confident person. There’s no special technique
you can suddenly use on your own brain to make yourself into a
confident person, it’s a naturally occurring process that comes
from feedback from the environment. If you change what you do
in the external world and start having more fun and influencing
it, you’ll be confident byproxy.
However, some of the techniques in the book require you to look
like you’ve already ‘made it’, that you’ve already achieved
everything you want in your life.
The reason you need to come across like your already successful
is because we all have high expectations in what we want to
achieve from a mating partner and from what we expect from
friend selection. The reality is these ‘hopes’ are confined by our
personal limitations. Therefore we are likely to be disappointed
with the quality of friends and relationships we achieve.
If you give the impression that your happy and comfortable with
the way things are going in your life, at least other people might
be led to believe that your actually achieving your dreams, and
therefore you might get a partner, friendships, job opportunities
and other things somewhere towards your expectations.
Techniques that make you come across happy and successful
involve, Leaning back when you speak rather than leaning in
creates the effect that you’re laid back and comfortable in your
own skin. Speaking slowly and with authority delivers the
impression that you know exactly what you’re saying and you
know that you’re as good as you need to be. Looking in the eyes
of people you’re speaking to. Smiling at people you meet,
greeting everyone and not being afraid to be different and touch
people. Speak with a booming voice, like your confident and
people listen to you, rather than a scared mouse-like voice like
you’ve been beaten around your entire life.
You often hear the phrase “You can’t change a first impression”.
As much as I dislike such pop-psychology twaddle, because you
can change a first impression, the statement still holds a great
deal of truth. A better statement would be, it’s difficult to change
a first impression.
You've probably handed out a business card, or your phone
number. And found people holding it, staring at it half an hour
after you gave them it. You might be wondering, what are they
staring out? Haven't they read it already?
What are they thinking about.... they are going along with what
little you've gave them and treating it as your brand, the concept
of you, your position within the marketplace, you using what's
unique about you and holding it as a competitive business
offering.
Just like people starring at your business card, when you enter a
room, when you approach a new group, when you stand a bar
people will look at you and they are learning about your brand,
they aren't really thinking about anything… They are just staring
like the people with the business card.
It’s important to build a personality strategy, that way you are
set up on how to greet people, how to smile, and how to act,
dress and other things in a social situation. This simplifies
complexities like ‘Be confident’ and instead gives you a script, a
character to play and exaggerate.
Your apparent confidence is the quality of your acting, how well
you deliver your best embodiment of this character. Underneath
it all, it’s hard to find our true personality; it’s a progressive
thing that is uncovered by the events in our life. By focusing on
delivering a performance you will always appear confident even
if you’re confused by the ongoing problematic events in your
life.
2. Gain peoples interest.
Social attention, you know that feeling when you walk in a room
and everyone goes quiet, they are all waiting and competing to
get a chance to speak to you. That’s the kind of attention we
want.
However, like all great journeys start with a single foot step so
does every relationship. Every human connection begins by
having just that little bit of fascination and interest from
someone.
Initially no one knows who you are. But with every greeting,
every handshake, every head nod and “Hi” you’ve locked in
some demand. The more people that watch you, the more
frequently they see you and the more commitment they’ve made
into your brand, then the more socially in demand you are.
When we first start off forming an acquaintance with someone it
first starts off with initial eye contact, exchange of smiles, some
form of greeting such as a “Hi” and then slowly our body
language becomes more aligned with that person. We begin
facing that person straight on and the level of touching increases
between one another. Perhaps we get each other to do small
favors for one another and share secrets and before you know it
we have a full blown 20 year relationship with that person….
You use likeability factors to build the relationship. By acting
like you already know the people you’re talking to it avoids any
awkwardness, and believe that they really do somehow know
you.
Building connections with as many people as possible is the key
to becoming locally known. This will allow you to stick out as
the best possible choice for a dating partner, or a figure to look
upto for recommendations and advice possible. As you increase
the involvement & connection that every individual feels with
you. And they invest more of their time and effort into
maintaining that relationship you become more popular.
The frequency you’re seen, the intensity of the connections, the
proximity to the people who have seen you. how physically
close you were geographically to them. All influence how strong
your relationships with your audiences are.
That initial flicker of the imagination can quickly be the lead, be
the anchor that grounds all thoughts, beliefs, actions and feelings
about the nature of reality surrounding. You become the social
norm that must be copied, mimicked.
As wrote by Seth Godin (2008:5) “A movement is thrilling. It’s
the work of many people, all connected, all seeking something
better” we want to create this hypnotic effect in our interactions.
To build, social situations that engage.
We need to meet as many people as possible. Our initial
interactions with people might start off humble, but that doesn't
matter. All beginnings start small and a handshake, a head nod,
a high five or a greeting such as “Nice Jacket” will suffice.
When you enter a room, you should make an effort to smile and
say “hi” to everyone you brush past as if you already know
them. Your positive and upbeat and seem to have an energy that
other people notice, and then they feel happy too. Be a positive
person - laugh, smile, make other people happy. It’s been shown
by numerous studies that speaking positively about other
people, yourself, and life, makes people associate good feelings
and liability with you. And that liability makes us extremely
persuasive!
If you see something that is clearly recognizable you’re likely to
remember it and be attracted to it. If you use these factors to
make yourself memorable you will receive social attention.
To create massive attention, you need to be as recognizable to
the largest collective of people, as frequently as possible. To
allude to already being this guy means acting like you’re the guy
who seems like he knows people who knows people.
With every friendship you generate it’s important to appear as a
friend, rather than that you’re trying to get something out of the
person. If you give the appearance that the person your forming
a relationship is in demand and you’re not then it’s likely that
you will be treated as lacking value and the person will pay no
attention to you. Acting as a friend, means offering value to the
person; by offering innovative content, ways of life, experiences,
stories for free then you will come across interesting and
exciting, rather than manipulative and a user.
Generating a friendship should be seen as the opening stage to
any relationship and it begins by sharing content. A quick way
of building friendship can be supporting her life and social
position, this is because (social economically speaking) you will
be reducing her effort costs in maintaining her 'ego-value' level,
one way we do this is by listening to someone's emotional hooks
and creating commonality i.e. implying similarities amongst
yourself and the person your speaking with.
Lastly, some people are already responsive to you. You know
the people who look at you when you enter a room. When you
speak to someone or speak loudly they turn around to watch!
Don’t forget about these guys!
If you keep your eyes peeled you will spot those people who are
already responsive to your social value. When you walk in who
is looking out the corner of their eye, remember girls have
greater peripheral vision, so if you look at them straight on you
will never see them look at you because they've already turned
away (even if they are interested). Remember if you’re trying to
work with people that aren't currently responding then you have
to develop social phenomena that will make those individuals
responsive.
Remember: Always creation social attention: i.e. the social proof
and likeability before demanding responsiveness, because
people always seek higher utility, and therefore will be response
to you when you illustrate you offer that.
3. Gain social proof.
Now that you are recognized, you should be working on locking
in the demand from the people you speak to. This means that
you need to separate yourself slightly from your audience, so
they need you and you don't need them.
One way you can create a power imbalance between yourself
and your audience is to lead people and expect compliance
when you push and pull people physically or ask people to do
things, or to separate individuals from the rest of their group by
guiding them with you.
When building responsiveness from new audiences it’s
important to bare in mind that in most venues that you enter
someone else will already have a hot room i.e. this means that
they already have exposure to the majority of people there. The
people who usually get all the benefits i.e.
persuasiveness/attractiveness are these people.
This makes people attracted to them and thus they usually get
first pick of who they socialize with. To complete with the
people who have already heated up a venue might mean
spending months being a regular to that place, or it might mean
working on a way to super-heat a room in a single evening. But
how do you go about taking a venue from freezing cold to
smoking hot in a single night?
To become absolutely attractive requires absolute power; to
reposition to acquire a position of best-fit, that is impossible to
acquire by any other player, having a unique offer of surplus
that cannot be achieved by any other competitor and you dictate
the absolute focus of bargaining become successful requires
Leverage, stretching and cheating advantages. You have to have
something that no one else can get and demand explicit
concentration for that content.
Building supply and demand, to be in demand requires two
elements (a. uniqueness & b. limited supply) the extent of which
depends on the demand and the supply of substitute products.
Uniqueness is something that is covered in the competitive
advantage part of the book; and how to develop unique
positioning however, with regards to groups being the
performer, being in a locked in position with everyone around
you does exactly that. Speak loudly so everyone can hear you
and have people crowd round you by getting a lot of interaction.
This isn’t the guaranteed 100% method to seduce anyone; It’s
just explaining how you can, get more people to notice you, spot
these agents, then covertly escalate them onto further
commitment to you, by identifying agents who are ready to
engage, or by identifying the sources of competition and
developing unique positioning within the environment to
reallocate interest onto you then working with their attention,
you will find yourself experiencing, long periods of
uninterrupted success. If you understand what is going on
around you, you never actually fail because everything that
occurs is predicted within your model. You know where the
pockets of success and fail are, and you can seek and avoid as
necessary.
A little piece of attention, on you as an individual can quickly be
expanded to occupy more space in their awareness than they
initially planned, building their level of involvement within the
movement can easily grow. As shown by Freedman, J. L., &
Fraser, S. C., (1966) When people in a housing estate were asked
to have a large ugly sign on their front lawn, advising motorists
driving by to slow down, 17% of residents accepted. However,
this rose to 76% of residents accepting when two weeks prior
they were asked to put a small sticker on their front window
advising motorists to slow down. Getting people involved in
small movement initially can lead to massive involvement later
on.
These techniques, play up to the sense that you are in short
supply and in great demand because, not only does it make the
listener like you, and therefore put you in demand from them.
But also, implying that you have positive relations with lots of
people. And enjoy life,makes you appear valuable.
Being attractive isn't defined by looks, but how surrounded by
people you appear to be, how often you smile, use touch, and
build interest from those around you (appear in demand) One
method (warming up a venue) to achieve this is standing in the
center of the circle it delivers the impression that your ideas
contain greater weight than other peoples. A longer term
approach (entering a hot venue) could be to develop various
tribes with you acting as a leader, having and inner circle, and an
outer circle, then onlookers.
Having a unique perspective on life, makes you appear original,
therefore meaning that you have no competition for those ideas,
Porter, M.E. (1985) making them, by economic definition more
valuable. Dawkins, R (1976).
It’s likely that original ideas, like being in demand, cause people
to pay attention to you, potentially tripling your suggestive
effect!
Whether early on in the relationship, or several hours or days
down the line, the rule is true that the greater percentage of time
and effort of others you take, the more committed they'll be to
you, and whatever terms you dictate will be attractive by
definition of your higher utility offering.
Identifying Targets
When I first became a hypnotist I wouldn’t have any process for
deciding who I went to hypnotize, therefore I would choose
subjects who were clearly not wanting to spend their time
listening to me, and were just being forced into engaging in this
hypnosis procedure with me, then I would beat myself up
mentally when I failed to hypnotize that person. This mind-set
does not exist in this pua-hypnosis approach that I’m outlining.
Once you’ve built a unique identity, it’s important to then spot
who is responding to it. Who is paying you attention for brief
moments and then use these people and that’s precisely what we
will discuss how to do in this chapter.
For example; This evening I was sitting in a booth on the edge of
a dance floor, a girl was standing leaning against the edge of the
booth, I said to my friends to move along as to allow her to sit
down, I told her to sit and she sat in the newly allocated space.
This was her passing compliance test number one, leaning across
my friends to talk to her I took hold of her hand and pulled her
so she was leaning across the table to speak to me, I asked
“what’s your name”. (compliance test number 2) I then pulled
her across my friends so she had to climb over them so she was
sitting on my lap (compliance test number 3), I tilted by head
and she tilted in response (mimicking my social learning, this
was compliance test 4) I kissed her.
With the pick up example described above, the reason it worked
is because the girl was standing on the edge of the dance floor
therefore she was clearly a agent, as she had spare attention, she
clearly had free time and her attention wasn’t been occupied by
anything in particular. I had her agree to sit down, which was a
form of agreement, then I had her lean over to talk to me, and
then had her sit on my lap, this progressive affiliation and
agreement to my requests coupled with her initial agreement to
participate in this process allowed a successful pick up. This is
why its essential that you choose agent that you are capable of
winning on, because then they will have the time to listen to
your plausible deniabilities, your excuses that you tell as you
accidentally touch her, make eye contact and isolate her. But
you’re not going to get this far unless you get your agent-
spotting eyes on.
With hypnotic subjects, I will have them stand around me for a
little bit before I hypnotize them, I tend to watch when I speak
who is listening to me, who is paying attention to me when I
walk around a venue, then I assume they will be responsive to
me, I believe thattheir attention isn’t being competed for, or that
my competitors for their attention are not as unique, or as useful
to the watcher as I am for them, and therefore I have their
interest.
Before you expect to escalate with someone you need formal or
informal agreement from the agent to engage in this process of
complying with your basic instructions. Without a properly set
up agent, i.e. you’ve clearly got their attention for a while, then
pick up like hypnosis is impossible at this stage (unless of course
they become an interested agent midway through).
This philosophy states that people are always looking for
something more motivating or interesting that seems to offer
them greater utility.
The problem is often people are unable to spot this opportunity
because they have already ‘bought into’ a way of life or being
that is repetitive and therefore safer. Other people are ready and
available to have their attention played with, and providing
what your offering seems to be a good offer, and then they will
be happy to engage in the process for a time period that doesn’t
conflict with their other interests. I.e. if you hold someone for too
long who only expected you to show them something briefly
they might suddenly consider the opportunity your showing
them to be unprofitable for them rather than a beneficial
experience.
It’s important, instead of beating yourself up for not seducing or
hypnotizing everyone. Instead providing you know exactly the
reasons why you selected that agent or the agent you selected
rejected you, then you can understand every step of the process.
Knowing exactly what is occurring and what you are doing is
much more important than trying to pull everyone. For years
I’ve searched for the holy grail of hypnotizing everybody or
seducing everybody. It’s just backwards thinking to think like
that. If the environment creates the right conditions and you do
the required steps, then providing there are no hip cups or
mistakes, which there usually are. Then it will work.
In hypnosis, there are two reasons why 90% of hypnotists fail on
subjects they could have otherwise got. Firstly they didn’t
properly outline a to the subject that there is a set time period for
them to listen and comply with your instruction, and the second
mistake hypnotists make is they make suggestions for their
subjects to act ‘not hypnotized’, that is to say they slip up in their
language and blame the subject for not understanding and thus
complying with the request.
When a seducer gets into a conversation with a girl it often
results in a positive experience for both parties, even if it’s just
meeting each other. Typically on seduction boot camps I’ve
noticed that when my students finally get into a conversation
with a girl it usually results in some kind of close even with very
basic method to their approach. However we tend to make this
hard on ourselves, by picking agents that are difficult to talk to,
this is because we don’t recognize what agents to target and
instead choose based on no reasoning except perhaps how
attractive she seems.
we blame ourselves and our subjects for the fact that we never
set up a time period where we could engage in a conversation
with our subject, and we were never clear exactly on the method
or goal that we were trying to achieve and thus illustrate with
the girl we are targeting. This self-blame is really damaging to
your ego… Believe me I’ve been there, I’ve kicked myself for not
picking up girls who I never even managed to get into a full
conversation with.
How can I possibly justify that? If I tap her on the shoulder and
say hi and she can’t hear me, then it’s not acceptable for me to
blame myself that I didn’t pick her up, the approach was
unlikely to work. She never engaged in a time period to
communicate with me, and therefore I could never properly
illustrate the range of instructions that I wanted her to
participate in.
When I was a teenager, my results with girls were incredible. But
the main cause of my results was that that I didn’t see failure as
an option. I really needed somewhere to stay. I really thought
kissing as many girls as I could per night was the most
interesting thing I could be doing with my time. I didn’t pick
based on who was most attractive, even though I’ve always been
into especially pretty girls. I chose my agents based on who I
knew i could close, whose attention I could find a way of
holding.
Sure I might do things to soft test my environment, for example I
might wear a peacocked outfit and notice who pays attention to
me and then open them, I might wave across the room as if I’m
waving to a friend and see which girls take notice. Knowing how
to run your wins, and pick winners; is like a performer’s license,
it allows you to get results like a rock star and have everyone
notice and talk about you.
Many people who hang around with me all the time might say
that I never fail to hypnotize, but they don’t see how careful I’m
being, how select I’m being. Sure I’ve created a way of being that
naturally is careful for me, for example I might wait for people to
participate in my world, to hang around me a bit before I
hypnotize them.
I don’t just go out there and try to push random strangers into
hypnosis. I try to be chilled and relaxed about it and pull people
in. In seduction it’s the same thing, the results touted around the
internet about what it takes to be one of the best seducers is
something between 5-10 girls a month for a full close.
Ok I know what some of you are thinking right? That I’m being
defeatist that I’m saying, ‘don’t try on the people you can’t get’
I’m not, this same strategy of being unique, talking to everyone,
gaining interest from the agent, will get the party girl who has
twenty guys surrounding her, just remember to use the strategy
properly, don’t compete like all the other guys do, else you’ll just
run into the problems they are hitting.
You could easily spend the entire night trying to get party girls
in the centre of the dance floor surrounded by guys using the
specified method, but you might never gain her interest and
therefore never progress onto escalation. For this reason, I
recommend pick the agents without competitors for their
attention. Most nights of gaming last only between 4-6hours and
you could easily lose a significant portion of time trying to gain
the party girl who doesn’t have time for you. But you might end
up going back to your house numberless, kiss-less, dateless,
sexless, you’ve gained nothing! So why not just do what works
best.
Many new hypnotists I talk to, want a challenge; they challenge
themselves to hypnotize the person that resists them. Then when
they think back in their memory over the past month and they
wonder why they’ve not hypnotized anyone then they mentally
beat themselves up, blaming themselves that they are a poor
hypnotist. But really they chose to fail just because they thought
it would be fun or interesting. After years of being a hypnotist
and countless subjects you really get over this need to work with
resistant subjects.
The same applies for seduction, you don’t want to be looking
back over your months of seduction and think ‘jeez I didn’t get
any girls, PUA doesn’t work’ just because you wanted to pull in
the most difficult situation. You want to be leaning back with a
smile across your face thinking ‘I’ve kissed seven girls this week’
while everyone else complains about their unhappy love life, or
that their job is boring them.
Typically if you isolate someone, i.e. separate the subject from
their friends then the person will be ready to listen to what you
have to say. It tends to work better if the subject is relaxed. The
reasons people struggle to reach this stage, is nightclubs are
highly competitive and guys will jump all over girls and cause
them a great deal of stress to try and gain their attention.
Typically if you isolate someone, i.e. separate the subject from
their friends then the person will be ready to listen to what you
have to say. It tends to work better if the subject is relaxed. The
reasons people struggle to reach this stage, is nightclubs are
highly competitive and guys will jump all over girls and cause
them a great deal of stress to try and gain their attention.
For this reason girls will often give each individual guy only the
tiniest portion of their attention. It has been said by various pick
up artists that a hot girl will be hit on 30 times a day. As then
qualified by these pick up artists, this only happens to certain
girls who tend to get that sort of reaction. But none the less the
point remains; girls really don’t have a lot of time for men they
don’t know personally.
Firstly there are places where peoples preparation to be attentive
and engage with a process are better; and therefore if you want
to results more consistently then its best to agent these places as
there is naturally less competition for attention, places suchlike:
 Outdoor smoking areas
 Waiting in cues to clubs with girls
 Meeting people through people
 House parties
 After parties
 Tourists
When people aren’t in this ‘ready to pay you attention state’,
they will naturally discriminate against you, as the guy/girl isn’t
interested in engaging in that process with you as they are
preoccupied with another goal in their mind. Just as sometimes
men discriminate about what is their type, whether they really
want the girl and bring all their preconceptions about what they
want sometimes, and then overtimes they have no
discrimination’s, they are just horny, full of life, and want to
stick it in something. Girls are the same, sometimes they care
about types, other times they just want to have something put
inside of them and feel used.
There are only a handful of girls in a given club who are actually
genuinely dancing, genuinely feeling the moment, who are up
on life. Unless you’ve got an opportunity to take the girls who
are ‘cold’ the ones who have only come out because their friends
are out, the ones who still have oneititus from their last
boyfriend, or from the guy that they half know, or they simply
don’t feel genuine because of work, career, worries, money. Sure
given the opportunity for them to place their attention on you,
and you talk to them you can change this, but in a highly
competitive environment you simply can’t bank on that until
you isolate them.
By ensuring that your visible, and are increasing your audience
participation by being seen frequently having small investment
etc. into your character in order to them check who’s responsive
to you. This essentially is an extension of the idea of seduction
community’s theory of ‘Indicators of interest’. This theory
believes that you can check whether someone is attracted to you,
by looking out for certain criteria or by throwing out a test and
checking a response. You shouldn’t expect to convert everyone
over to you at once, instead you can pick off those who are
responsive to you and then slowly try to get round to their
friends also. The same works in the club;
 Look everyone in the eye… hold gaze, smile, wait for
them to turn away, if they turn back within 45 seconds
they are into you.
 When you’re near a group of girls and you’ve created
attention (i.e. by eye contact or presence i.e. speaking
loudly) see who moves round to your side of their social
circle to be close to you.
 When you step back from a group of girls see who
watches you leave (i.e. because they have attention on
you and are therefore responsive)
 When you lean in to kiss a girl on the cheek, or hug,
move slowly across her face during the interaction,
perhaps to also kiss the other cheek if she leans in
slightly, then its likely she wanted to kiss you, memorize
this for later to build the tension further.
 When you put your hand on her back during a casual
chat, does she shrug her shoulders to indirectly shake
your arm off, or does she let you keep it there. Does she
respond by touching you? If you’re unsure maybe you
should increase the interaction by holding her arm in
order to find out if she then rejects you.
Pick up, hypnotism and persuasion is risk free-guaranteed to
work. Ok that’s a lie! It’s not it fails all the time. A little bit of
failure here, a little bit of failure there. The trick that makes it
seem as if you really get everyone is that you run your wins and
you cut your losses.
You quickly spot who is complying with you and advance their
interest. Or you take someone who is complying with you then
they start un-complying and then you get them back complying
again and build interest, or you take someone who is un-
compliant, and you end up turning them compliant. If you have
the ability to spot who is listening to you, and who is ignoring
you. Then you’ll be good at this and you can have one-hundred-
per cent results for yourself because you’ll only use those who
are responders.
We all naturally have the ability to know who is truly listening
to us and who isn’t I think the thing that holds those of us back
who currently don’t feel like we have this ability, is that we have
had poor results with girls in our life, and therefore we feel
negative about other people’s opinions of us, so we don’t let
ourselves see that people are really responding quite negatively
to us.
In street hypnosis we are constantly assessing whether someone
is likely to move on to the next stage of the interaction with us,
the same goes for attraction, before someone moves onto the
further attraction stages we are constantly assessing whether
they are likely to move with us into these stages. If we touch a
girl on her back, and she doesn’t throw us off, then this shows
that she is likely to respond to the next aspect of compliance, she
is without knowing it moving through the stage model because
of her responsiveness or lack of resistance to our undercover
persistence.
Compliance is the way that some guys (who haven’t had any
training) ‘naturals’ just automatically know that a girl is into
them and is going to eat anything out of their hand.
The difference between a natural and a non-natural, the natural
has the ability to notice who is responding to them, and non-
naturals just don’t have a clue and tend never to push their
For example you might walk into a club with your shoulders
back, smiling, you slowly scan and make eye contact with
everyone in the club you turn away and turn back and every girl
turns and smiles at you. To call this an IOI would confuse the
term. Because it wasn’t spontaneous, it’s a reaction to you being
a source of utility (in this case positive emotion, genetic need to
nurture because of cuteness phenomena).
You threw out a compliance test, and you checked who
responded to the test. These IOI’s were a response to the soft
compliance test that you already put out there; you just did a test
and observed the results to see who was an eligible fascination
candidate.
This essentially is an extension of the idea of seduction
community’s theory of ‘Indicators of interest’. This theory
believes that you can check whether someone is attracted to you,
by looking out for certain criteria or by throwing out a test and
checking a response. Country to popular belief within the pick-
up community, no indicator of interest is ever spontaneous, the
reason a girl is looking at you isn’t because she’s giving you an
indicator of interest it’s because she’s responding to something
you’ve already done.
It could be said that every indicator of interest is always a forced
IOI. What is the look? Leaning in to you, Smiling, Eye contact,
standing proximate to you, The reality is you have a lot of
competitors, more than any other industry you’ll compete in for
the rest of your life. Rarely is an IOI really an IOI. It’s more of a
reaction, a response.
Seduction is like a little wedge, that you get in there from
building responsiveness, but once someone is complying to you,
it’s pretty much guaranteed that when you put another test of
compliance in front of them they are likely to respond to it.
Any flicker of fascination, any response, any compliance has the
ability to be exaggerated, brought to the foreground. And any
imagining can easily be primed, anchored and the like through
frequent exposure to it and feelings of similarity to the concept,
and pressure to accept to idea quickly else lose opportunity to
gain potential benefits.
The best persuaders are those type of attention seekers, you
know the ones? The smiling guy who is the life of the party, they
just have to constantly have everyone looking at them. The times
you noticed it, is the times it annoyed you. But typically these
people are very successful at winning people over to do their
bidding.
They are great at using soft compliance tests as jokes, as hints,
they get people to participate, to play to their beckon.
When you persuade, you must be aware that you are guiding
attention, and have a sense of whether people are coming with
you, or whether they are being unresponsive. The only way to
check this is by throwing out soft tests, and gaining commitment
off your participants.
The most fun and engaging people in the world. Aren't afraid to
be themselves! They take leadership through holding and
guiding people, showing that their way to go, is the best way.
They push those around them to do things that they never
would have done before and enjoy it! Because it was positive.
Because its fun!
To be liked, and to be a leader, requires that you lead by
example. Show that you've got what makes the world tick, the
ultimate positive energy, and those around you will seek.
Remember if you do spot that someone is complying with you
then you’re OK to progress that compliance into a bigger
commitment, by perhaps increasing the levels of kino escalation
or eye contact frequency and duration.
Here are some tips on how to constantly soft compliance check
the room:
 watch who’s watching you,
 Be aware who changes their rhythm to match yours.
 Check who steps forwards towards you when you step
back
 Accidentally touch people by accident and see if they
reach to touch you
 Change your bodily rhythm to copy that of the person
you’re trying to charm.
 Throw out big signals to create attention, be noisy, eye
contact everyone, extravagance.
 Walk around in a zig zag like pattern when you walk, so
you move closely to everyone at some point and to
watch who leans in to you as you walk away, these
people are responsive to you.
Know what you’re up against, read the venue, that way you
can’t blame yourself when you don’t pick up any girls. Look
around and spot the ‘hot energies’ and the ‘cold energies’ both in
guys and girls, be aware that a hot energy might quickly meet a
guy, or have just been with a guy and for that reason she might
decline you because she is locked into his monopoly. (A girl isn’t
really ever declining, she’s just doing something else)
To bring this back to hypnotism, I will often once I gain
someone’s attention I might take them outside to an isolated area
to perform the hypnosis, this way I can be sure that they have
committed to the process in the sense that they have left their
friends and gone for a walk with me. And I can check visually if
they appear to be listening to what I am saying.
In seduction a lot of the game is considered ‘won’ the moment
that you do this exact move, the moment you have took the girl
to an isolated area and begun escalating it usually quickly leads
to a kiss close or more providing you bounce to a location where
further intimacy is possible.
And therefore we will move onto the next discuss about how to
esculate someones commitment to you.
Holding someone’s attention, progressing
commitment.
We’ve so far considered how to gain attention in an environment
where attention is scarce. How to speak to the most in demand
person in a venue and have them agree to some kind of
interaction that lasts a underlying period of time. Understanding
how attention is allocated can make you realize that you aren’t
failing when you fail to gain attention from girls in nightclubs.
It’s just that the environment was way too competitive and the
agent’s attention was divided between you and the other
competitors and the other ideas in their life, and they couldn’t
establish any reason or utility for why their attention should be
allocated to you.
Now we would like to cover, what to do when you gain a girls
sole attention for a time period. This is typically when you are
sitting down with a girl, or for a moment she has separated from
her friends, or just the fact that you are in some kind of dialog
with her, maybe you’ve exchanged a couple of sentences. How
do you proceed to seduce her from this point?
Attraction isn’t a switch that suddenly flicks on; it’s a process
where someone negotiates different stages with you. It’s that
little flicker of interest or fascination. Someone will never admit
they are attracted to you till long after they are fully pining for
you, because the truth is they simply have too much choice
about whether they are attracted to you or not at the moment –
they can compare and contrast different concept-perspectives –
as they are all economically equal i.e. no one is more primed.
Take the choice away by increasing the amount of investment
that the person you’re speaking to has in you then suddenly they
are locked into your monopoly and by definition attracted. I
believe these economic perspectives give further depth to the
seduction debates between tribe building versus
persuasion/hypnotic tactics.
Our aim with whoever we spoke to should be to demand their
attention. By having this attitude we can then notice when some
individuals are compliant to others while actively avoid placing
their attention on us.
Finding the moment
I tend to ‘people watch’ a fair bit, and the majority of the time
two people begin interacting with each other who were
originally strangers is that they suddenly found a moment
where their energy matched. And during that moment they then
came together through some kind of interaction, whether it was
eye contact, touch, or close proximity.
That is to say, when you want to interact with a girl, you should
find a way to match her energy, or have her be proximate to
your presence, or have shown interest in you before you then
begin to make the interaction happen.
Usually a situational moment is followed by a comment such as,
“I think that outfit is great”, “your so happy”, something you
state about yourself “I’m in such a good mood”, or something
about the environment “It’s great in here isn’t it?” it could be
that the song in the background is progressing towards a peak.
One of the things it can be is that you two seem to share various
things in common, for example you might be dancing in the
same manner, or matching each other’s vibe energy, for example
moving in the same rhythm, smiling in the same manner, then
suddenly this provides a reason to suddenly begin interacting.
Often I will purposely go out to create this effect, or notice which
girls are copying my energy, the way I move, the way I smile,
and because we are similar we really get on when we begin
interacting.
Commonality has been shown by scientists and economist
theorists to be one of the main cause for partnerships, as it
lowers costs experienced as an individual as you work together
producing synergies as a team. Its just a moment where you
suddenly acknowledge that your both not separate identities,
you both are together under some kind of shared context and
you point this out.
There are many courses such as Ross Jeffries course and Head
Hacking’s course that make the recommendation that when you
meet someone you should follow the CIQ method. All that
means is you should follow the format of, complimenting
someone “hey that’s a cool t-shirt,” introduction “my name is
Vince”, question “so what do you study at university then?”, or
“So have you been working today?”
Our essential conversational structure isn’t that dis-similar, we
are just analysing the logic of such snippets of conversation
under a bigger magnifying glass.
If you want to get really good as a hypnotist the most important
skill you can learn is the actual approach of meeting strangers
and giving them a positive perception of your character as a cool
person.
If you view it as, ‘shit I’ve got to go out there and find a hot girl
and take her home’ you’ll probably make a load of mistakes. But
consider this the way that I’m framing it and you’ll see it as far
easier. If you just go out there and search for people you can
engage, then you’re onto winners. Sure from there we need some
technique. And I guess initially you’re not entirely sure what a
‘ready to engage person’ looks like. But it’s just a person who
has no other competitors for their attention.
As an example of a strategy you could take, you could chat to
her friends, or make friends with some of guys surrounding her.
That way you will appear more valuable than them and she
might feel that she has now a clear priority list for who to put
her most attention on, This works, to speak in economic terms,
because you’re a larger player because you’ve performed a
merger to dominate a larger market share. It’s no guarantee, but
if you could actually let her believe you were the coolest guy
around and actually perform such a merger, yeah you’d
probably get her attention.
Implied Suggestions
Some suggestions are implied, by the situation themselves. Often
these are the most powerful form of suggestion as the subject
merely assumes it to be true without you having slowly have
them experience it indirectly and thus come to become aware of
it. For example; Your close to a girl physically, you have your
arm around her and she has a hand placed on your chest. The
implied suggestion is that you and her both want to be with each
other sexually. Often thoughts following feelings, which follow
situations.
We are seeding ideas into a girls head while at the same time not
giving them any reason to resist. By ensuring that there is plenty
of compliance and responsiveness you are preventing any
negative backlash as a result of bringing up ideas. The idea I
recommend seeding is to imply that she fancies you, but without
blatantly saying it as this will 80% of the time cause resistance.
The way you stand, letting her look at you, having her place her
arm around you, or hand on your chest, or be talking to her in
the corner of the room alone, all imply that she fancies you.
Providing you can maintain that frame, then she’ll likely start
feeling those feelings.
The implied suggestion; of being physically close, and physical
intimacy implies a sexual vibe, that she fancies you, the implied
suggestion of being alone with each other, and holding each
other. or being in one’s bedroom implies that you’re going to
have sex.
There are several specific routines that myself and my friends
who I have been talking to perform in order to create a scenario
that implies that she fancies you.
Close your eyes….. I won’t kiss you I then don’t kiss her and she
opens her eyes. During the time she was thinking about whether
I would ‘actually kiss her’ and probably decided that it wouldn’t
matter if I did because it would be funny. Or some other reason,
she might have imagined what it would be like if I did kiss her,
and thinks about how much she fancies me.
The following line comes from Freddy Jacquin, when used in the
right context, with the right attitude it should have her imagine
the scenario of staying together. While at the same time
preventing any resistance due to the breaking of the moment,
the words you use go as follows “Don’t imagine how good it
would be to spend the night together tonight.” (Smile) (walk
away) the smiling and walk away leave her to explore that
hypothetical context or her response to you but without having
to necessary react negatively towards you because you’ve
already left.
This routine came about from my days running a website called
‘team handsome’. Since the creation of ‘this model’ I’ve been
performing it again, I hand the girl a business card, which either
mentions something about ‘handsome’ or ‘being a man’ or ‘with
photo of yourself on’ let her look at the business card for a
moment, then say I’m good looking, (pause) in this picture, right
(smile) because your smiling and you’ve given her a gift that
she’s already interacting with, then she’s tempted to agree.
Because you’ve almost said it as a joke, then it prevents
resistance as you might not really know how good looking you
are, you might just be playing with her, and therefore it’s her job
not to put you down.
Often during a hypnosis routine with a girl, to begin the routine
I might Take their hand, and kiss them on the hand. Considering
that they are about to be hypnotized by me, this sets a frame
whereby if they continue agreeing to play along with the
hypnotic procedure while at the same time questioning whether
I fancy them/they fancy me, means there is both compliance and
imagination at the same time. Which encourages the result we
desire.
Often during a mind reading routine; where I pretend to read a
thought from someone’s mind, I might ask them to think of a
word. And as they think of that word, I tell them that I can see
their lips moving as they think of it. I touch their lips, and then
lean in close and touch my own lips as if this is how I’m
interpreting what word she is thinking of.
The general rule of thumb is not to express interest in a girl who
you are speaking to, rather to play around with building their
interest. One way I go about doing this, is I find ways to talk
about what I like about the girl but without directly telling her
what I think. For example instead of saying “your stunning” I
might say “That necklace is stunning”. Or I might think a girl is
gorgeous, but instead say “I’m in such a gorgeous mood”.
We’ve already covered the “I’m so fucking hot… it’s so fucking
hot in here” I’d like to credit Arash Dibazar for the following
two suggestions “What really turns you on… (wait to see her
face thinking) what’s your passions in life?” and “Are you
passionate?... (wait to see her face thinking) what are you
passionate about in life ”I’d recommend using sentences such as
“Do you fancy me… and you… going outside… I need to check
on someone” or “I need to steal you away for a moment…” this
kind of language brings up associations and sexual ideas. “I love
people who are willing to try anything once, be adventurous,
you only live once” This phrase focuses on freedom and mildly
alludes to sexual freedom. You might begin an imaginative
exercise by asking her to “go into a fantasy”, “Flirt with this
idea…. For a moment” as this way you’ve gave direct
associations for an idea yet you’ve not built any resistance for
them not to comply with you.
As a counter example to illustrate further how a sentence would
fail, imagine the instruction to “Kiss me” at that point when you
say that the girl has a choice. If she wants to kiss you, she will
likely decline as the moment is inappropriate and doesn’t feel
natural. If she doesn’t want to kiss you, then this will probably
emphasize her reasons further for why she isn’t attracted to you,
this opinion of you might be difficult to change now that she has
confirmed that is her opinion about you.
“If you were an Animal, what animal would you be?”, “There’s
something very animalistic about you”
“Which side of the Bed do you sleep on…. (wait to see her
answer) because apparently the side of the bed you sleep on is
how you think, like if you sleep on the left your more in touch
with your feelings, and if you sleep on the right you can be
really spontaneous”
“You’re not broody girl are you, just trying to meet a guy to have
kids with him? (laughs) you wouldn’t believe all the girls trying
to get their hands on my genetic code”
“Try not to fall victim for my charms”
“I really cherish…. (Look her straight in the eyes) This necklace,
my friend gave it me as a gift”
“What’s the most daring thing you’ve done, tell me something
adventurous about yourself”
“I daren’t touch you, you seem too delicate”
“Do you think this drink is delicious, point at her drink?”
“What do you Desire… where do you see yourself in 10 years’
time”
“Haha your easy to get along with”
“I’m Eager to learn about you”
“I could expose you, I’m a body language expert, I can read your
mind”
“You’re a Feisty one aren’t you?”
“Flirt with this idea for a moment”
“I need some fluids in me, to rejuvenate me… (Take a sip
yourself) (pass her drink) here you take a sip”
“Your pretty frisky… you seem to have this energy inside of
you, just wanting to come out”
“So now you know about me and all my Glory, let me hear
about you?”
“I’m in such a gorgeous mood”
“Haha I can hear you groaning… but I can’t tell what you’re
saying”
“I can tell you’re headstrong, once you set your mind on
something you want it so bad”
“I would hypnotize you but I don’t want to intimidate you”
“I bet you can be Impulsive”
“I’m going to do you for Indecent exposure that outfit it too
good” or “I’m indecently exposing, I’ve just been told I need to
do up more buttons on my shirt”
“You’re an impulsive person, you get an idea in your head and
you go with it”
“Be discreet I don’t want my ex to spot us”
“I don’t want to Inhibit or restrain you to stay with me here in
any way”
“You seem so innocent are you a good girl or a bad girl? What
do you think I am, my friends say I’m a badboy”
“I don’t mean to be insistent, but are we going to the bar”, When
she requests something of you “You’re so insistent”, or “if you
so insist”
“Let’s go somewhere a little more intimate”
“You’re not intoxicated are you?” implies that she might try it on
with you. “I hear stories about intoxicated girls in Britain”
“I’ve just been travelling I’m getting itchy feet again”
“Let’s make her jealous”
“I need to go for a Leak”
“I like the color of your Lipstick”
“You little Skimpy thing”
“Your sporting quite a slender frame, aren’t you my dear?”
“I’m always told that I Pout, show me your best pout”
“My heart is beating really strangely, feel my pulse (place her
fingers on your wrist) you feel that? “
The above were just a few examples of how you could use sexual
language in your conversations, really rather than individual
short catchphrases as listed above you should naturally drop
these words and phrases into your conversations.
How to escalate commitment
In order to demonstrate – how trust works in relationship
formation; we are going to use the example of the opposite sex –
but I use this method whether it’s for meeting people to gain
self-employed work, or to build partnerships from networking.
Many people reading this book – will have taken the advice
offered and related to building attraction with the opposite sex;
and therefore we have a responsibility to offer ways of
progressing the relationship from its very humble beginnings
(sharing the same venue) into an actual interaction.
Our ability to trust others – has been developed over millions of
years of evolution – There are specific regions in the brain
associated with trust - “the fact that trust at a basic personal level
is psychologically rewarding is unsurprising. The more difficult
questions from a psychological point of view concern the
mechanisms which permit this desirable and rewarding state of
affairs to come about.” – almost undoubtedly trust occurs the
majority of the time accidentally – you happen to know someone
– who seems genuinely nice; and they happen to go to the same
places you do and have similar interests to you – They might be
able to help you if you need help.
When we meet people – we need to make it seem like an
accident – yet progressively move them towards the things we
want, in persuasion this is referred to as ‘foot in the door
technique’. “It’s a compliance tactic that involves getting a
person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by
having that person agree to a modest request. Burger, J. M.
(1999) The foot-in-the-door technique succeeds due to a basic
human reality that social scientists call “successive
approximations”. Basically, the more a subject goes along with
small requests or commitments, the more likely that subject is to
continue in a desired direction of attitude or behavioural change
and feel obligated to go along with larger requests”. Dillard, J.
(1990)
Everyone is unique; this means they have huge potential to
network with other similar people – but also the huge problem
of no one being similar enough to them – people are alone in this
world and it would be nice to have some form of help.
Think about this; Imagine for a moment you had the ability to
predict, just three seconds into the future; you perhaps would
know whether to double your money on your hand in a
blackjack game, whether to call “ALL IN” on the last hand of a
poker game; three seconds might give you enough time to put a
final bet down on a roulette wheel; so you could guess roughly
where the ball would land? But perhaps that’s just small beans,
imagine if you could accurately predict which stock was going to
jump a few points, what if you could see all of these stocks that
jump a few points simultaneously, then you could play multiple
positions and make more money faster.
Your probably hoping that this book is about to offer the
solution to predict the future; if there was a solution I wouldn’t
be sitting here writing this book; I would be a billionaire perhaps
having someone else write a book like this for me, while I take
over the world; OK that’s enough of dreams that isn’t going to
happen.
But that’s the attraction isn’t it? To alcohol, to drugs, to others, to
jobs? We hope that the next little decision we make, is going to
be the one that changes everything; that our lives will never ever
been the same ever again. Sure, sometimes or most the time; we
don’t believe that anything is going to change – we’ve locked
into this doomed investment – and we expect we will be stuck
here until we die or a midlife crisis hits us; but occasionally
you’ve got that look on your face; like perhaps your about to win
big – and at this point you start taking risks; gambling, expecting
that this next shot – is your time to shine.
There are plenty of reasons why we are different to the person
we are speaking to; but it’s important that you only highlight
differences that are strategic advantages that the other person
would like to acquire (i.e. like self-confidence) – that is to say, we
should aim to build an image in another’s mind of all the good
qualities that they would like to see in you – so they will only be
able to see through that frame.
But the moment you say or do something wrong then they will
see you through the frame that you’re ugly, etc. According to the
NLP encyclopaedia (nlpuniversitypress.com: Dilts, R. DeLozier,
J.: 2000) the term ‘frame’ is used to refer to a general focus or
direction that provides an overall guidance for thoughts and
actions during an interaction. Frames greatly influence the way
specific experiences and events are interpreted and responded
to.
The reason we become attracted to someone in the first place, is
because they stick out as the most profitable choice compared to
the competition. As several research study shows, romantic
attraction is more dynamic...than just personality features... for
example commonality amongst partners, etc. the other
important element is strategic enterprise.
Having more utility benefit, is a motivating factor for all agents,
such as humans... therefore we are mathematically inclined to
form relationships. Relationships dramatically increase utility.
When you approach a stranger – there should be an accidental
reason or excuse for why your speaking to her. Her
opportunities are aligned with her current team-mates – the way
she has economized her life. You cannot, and should not; just
walk up to a stranger.
You need to have a reason for being there. For example if she’s
on the dance floor, then you should pretend that your dancing
having fun near or next to her, as the premise for the reason that
your conversation, or interaction, begins. Perhaps your dancing
and you grab hold of her arm and spin her round in a circle, that
way it seems as if the whole process of meeting her was
accidental, spontaneous and nothing to do with how physically
attractive she is.
A classic way of ‘the indirect approach’ is like what you see guys
do in the cinema, they might lean over to get some popcorn, or
yawn and as they do they raise their arms above their shoulders
and put them around the girl as they relax, as if by accident. That
is to say they increased the amount of kino in the interaction by
escalating the kino during an offbeat; they had a reason or guise
that seemed to justify increased interaction.
Perhaps you want to lock eyes with a girl in the bar, you can’t
simply just lock eyes with her, that would give away your game,
it would look like it’s entirely planned, however you might be
clearly and obviously looking for a friend and as you look for
your friend you lock eyes with your agent.
You use your ability to misdirect the attention of the agent to
‘shroud over’ your escalation exercises. You might say, “hey
those are really nice shoes,” while leaning your hand against her
leg while pointing down at her shoe. What is happening her is
more blood will rush to the area of the body you are touching,
and it will become more sensitive and her attention will be
drawn to you touching her leg, but because you simultaneously
talked and pointed at her shoe, the interaction goes un-noticed,
you’ve now made it seem acceptable to accidentally touch each
other in intimate areas and the next touch that you give will be
more easily accepted as it won’t seem like your just doing it to
‘try it on’ as it will somehow also be framed as an accident
because of the previous touch. Also now that you have framed
accidental intimate touch as acceptable, she might find herself
accidentally touching you, and then that will be a clear sign to
you that she is wanting the interaction to progress further.
The indirect approach also offers ideas for how to move around
a nightclub. You want to somehow check which girls in the club
are interested in you but without looking like you’re trying it on
with any one of them. One tactic is that you could look around
with wide eyes and attempt to make eye contact with everyone.
Another tactic is to when you move around a nightclub you
should never move in a straight line, you should have moments
where you move towards almost everyone and then move away
from them in a zigzag trajectory.
What this does, is it creates onbeats, moments where your
appear to be almost approaching someone, when you’re not
really, your clearly just wandering the venue, and then just as
you get close to them you move off in the other direction as you
continue the path of the zigzag. This creates a moment of
‘onbeat’ where your approaching, and offbeat when your
moving away. The girls who are responsive to you will watch
you as you begin moving away but blank you as your moving
close. These girls who are hyper responsive to your progressive
absence, are somewhat interested in you. They could be said to
be indifferent to your charm, something about you has opened a
doorway to them.
We’ve discussed the indirect approach and compliance. Both
these concepts rely on the fact that you are progressively getting
a girl to invest more heavily in the interaction with you, to feel
conditioned to respond to you in several areas.
These areas are; Touching, Eye Contact, Proximity, Sharing, and
voice. We want them to become used to our presence and for
them to feel comfortable to exert their presence over us.
An important aspect of pick up is escalation of touch, eye
contact, proximity, isolation without making it seem false,
forced, put on, formal, arranged, pre-planned etc. it should feel
spontaneous, accidental, automatic, passionate, electric, sparkle,
natural, lustful. So to do this we have various recommendations
when meeting girls, Lightly touch her abdomen as if by accident.
Hold her back as you pull her forwards so she talks into your
hear so you can hear what she’s saying loudly. And Hold her
back, accidentally touch her bum as you lean into her ear, look
her in the eye as you move across her face, sometimes be very
close as if your lips could touch but only for a moment as you
move across to do something else.
Often guys will make the mistake that they will wait to escalate
in any of these five areas, they might wait for a sign from the girl
to check that she’s really comfortable with that kind of
interaction; they are too respectful to the girls, thinking that they
are somehow protecting her.
This is completely backwards, the whole point of the indirect
approach and escalation is that you have a reason for escalating
that side-tracks any debate over whether you’re being too pushy
with the girl or whether it’s ok to begin escalating touch. Because
she can’t prove the reason your escalating is because you’re
hitting on her, then she’s instead likely to believe that it’s just for
the misdirection or plausible deniability reasons that you’ve
mentioned.
The time to start escalating is from the beginning of the
conversation. If you wait for a time to escalate it might come
across fake when you begin doing it, as if you’re doing it because
you’re into the girl rather than correctly building the illusion that
it is your nature or character to be touchy-feel type of person.
This means hugging her on open, holding her round the
abdomen, looking her straight in the eyes, while at the same time
talking about some other topic entirely (indirect) if your ever
challenged on your intentions ‘are you hitting on me’ the
response is ‘no are you hitting on me’ or ‘what do all you think I
am is sex on legs?’
How do you know when it’s a good time to escalate onto the
next stage of intimacy, if you put a test out, for example you held
her round her lower back as you leaned across the table to grab
something, and she didn’t actively knock your arm off her, then
its ok to progress onto a further stage of intimacy. In pick up
language this could be to say, instead of waiting for her to give
you indicators of interest to show that she likes you, instead
progress as if she likes you until she gives you a clear signal that
you’ve overstepped the mark, also known as a indicator of
disinterest.
This is the principle that most successful naturals in the club
work on they just go out there and they act a bit ‘larey’ and they
act as if it’s just their character and nature to touch girls, to make
sexual innuendo’s and big themselves up. To say these guys do
badly at picking up girls is just untrue. You might insult them
but they are actually doing a good job, you could argue they
don’t know what they are doing, but they just have another way
of describing it.
Typical understanding of the concept of ‘indicators of interest’,
might question me and say, Ok, so you mean “When a girl
brushes her hair… she’s into me right” Well yes I do mean that
“Or when she leans in” Yes, “Or when she goes to touch me or
hold my hand” yeah these are all good ways of knowing a girl is
into you. But these are after you’ve initiated the interaction and
then begun escalating the amount of touch that you’re using on
her. You already had her from the moment that she allocated her
attention onto you over all other competing moments for her
attention.
If you know when people are on the verge of listening to you, on
the verge of being attracted to you, and on the verge of kissing
you, on the verge of being in love with you. You can track their
progress through the stages. And push them into the next stage.
It all starts with just a little bit of interest, just a little bit of
fascination. Don’t feel bad for using these tricks to progress your
participants through the compliance tests with you, remember
your audience always has the choice to walk away if they don’t
want to listen to you or be touched by you.
It’s just a test, and typically it’s a 100% fail free test because we
can do smaller tests first that prove that they are likely to follow
the upcoming test. For example you might smile and see if they
smile back in order to see if they are responding to you, and
learning from you. Using this process of social conditioning we
condition them to accept our touch and to touch us in response,
to accept our eye contact and deliver eye contact in response
without ever giving the impression we are ‘into them’
They simply don’t have to stand there and listen to you. If they
are there talking to you, and letting you touch, guide, and are
showing signs are copying and mimicking you then they are
responsive, and this can be molded. Sure they aren’t attracted to
you. But they could be providing you guide them through the
necessary steps without overtly showing them that you want
them to be interested in you.
Once they kiss you, and once they are calling you every hour
then they know they are attracted to you but until then they are
unaware of their emergent involvement with you. If you ask
them at any moment ‘are you attracted’ or your body language
signals your attracted to them which causes them to ask
themselves the question ‘am I attracted to him’ they will always
find the answer is ‘no’ because your competing with infinite
number of other moments that are competing for their attention,
it’s a perfectly competitive market.
If we can mold their fascination and cause them to feel emotional
investment to us, then they want to nurture and protect that
investment and you’ll have a monopoly over their attention.
For example, before we decide whether it’s acceptable to enter
someone’s physical space (i.e. less than half a meter standing
from them) we enter their space to make a comment about
something else and then leave while watching her
responsiveness to this test. This allows gain understanding of
how she will respond to physical proximity before you achieve
it.
In order to understand whether she’s likely to accept your arm
around her back, you can test this by lightly holding her arm
when speaking to her. We already know we are going to succeed
with the girl before we move to any of the next stages.
Before we know that she will respond to gazing into your eyes
for long periods of time, we can test looking into their eyes
through stories and conversations where eye contact is an
important part of the story. “Do I look like a drug dealer to
you?” Stares straight into her eyes. “If you look straight into my
eyes you’ll get hypnotized” by doing this you are building the
frequency and consistency of her mind being used to gaining eye
contact with you while at the same time having a reason or
excuse for why you’re getting her to look you straight in the
eyes.
We mentioned that there are levels of intimacy. Although there
isn’t a strict chart, there are various mini checkpoints that you
might want to aim for, with Kino Escalation the following stages
could be outlined;
- Hugging
- Touching her hand
- Touching her forearm
- Touching her shoulder
- Touching her back
- Touching her lower back
- Touching her face
- Kissing on the cheek
- Touching her neck
- Kissing
- Touching her legs
- Touching her bum
With eye contact the various progression should be that initially
your sharing brief moments of eye contact, then slightly longer
moments, until your eventually sharing deep and meaningful
gazes into each other’s eyes. In addition to the duration of the
eye contact is the frequency of looks exchanged between each
other.
Ultimately when you come to that point in the conversation
when a kiss is likely to happen you will be staring regularly at
each other’s lips and then back at their eyes, this is a common
automatic process that humans seem to engage in before they
begin kissing with one another.
With proximity,
- Briefly near the person of interest and then
move away in passing.
- Standing about 6ft with your backs half
turned towards each other.
- Standing about a meter away from each
other.
- Fleeting moments of standing about half a
meter away from each other
- Fleeting moments of briefly being in each
others personal space, perhaps a body part
accidentally touching the other person.
- Constantly standing half a meter away from
each other
- Constantly in each other’s personal space.
With sharing of secrets;
- Their name, their living location, their
education, their career status
- Their close friendship groups
- Their hobbies and interests
- Information about childhood
- Their ambitions, hopes, dreams
- Their internal life philosophy, how luck
works, what’s right and wrong,
- What it feels like when they fall in love with
someone.
With sharing of your voice, I think it’s useful that you just get
used to each other’s voice.
- At first you won’t really understand what
each other is saying because of accents at the
words used in the interaction. At first when
speaking to people it’s useful to use very
simple language. Repeating words on
purpose so they get used to the sound.
- Then you will begin to understand each
other
- Then you will be ok to understand each
other in a noisy environment, but revert
back to using simple instruction.
- Then you will be able to have more detailed
conversations
- Then you will be able to understand each
other with some detail.
Another important factor is the time duration that you’ve held
her attention for. As a general rule of thumb if you’ve held her
attention for longer than 10 minutes in one form or another then
you should be doing great with the girl. If you’ve managed to
hold her attention for over 30 minutes then you’re in a great
position to close the girl on either a kiss close or progress into
something more provided you’ve built the sexual vibe.
It always struck me how easy people find it to explore this side
to their personality with a therapist – or a strange guy in a night
club, but how difficult they seem to find it amongst the noise of
day to day living. – Amongst all the noise – while with another
person one can find a kind of peace with themselves.
Have you ever had that feeling – where you’re truly powerful.
That your energy is solid and contained in your mental life – that
your attention is exact and precise – and instead of being at your
desk writing – your perfectly awake and in a nightclub/bar?
Maybe you have? – Well its incredible – everyone is running
around with so much noise; they can’t concentrate on anything;
not even their own thoughts; and in a half intelligent
conversation they can’t handle it – when you feel like this –
people are completely attracted to you; you seem like the coolest
person ever – so contained.
This is because “people are strategically attracted – to those with
whom – their resources could be properly aligned in pursuit of
higher utility” – We try to form teams – the same way with a
therapist we explore our own psychodynamic themes in order to
understand ourselves to better align ourselves with our goals –
and desires in the world – we feel that through the exploration of
our unique abilities; with another is profitable – in order to have
someone feel like this we need to have them explore.
 Learn to be generous with your time
 Give people your full attention
 See people as noisy that occur outside of you – bring
them into your calm.
 Escalation Routines
 Building a personal connection
It’s your job to progress the responsiveness onto sexualized
responses. The way we build further involvement from agents
for attraction is to create the physical and mental intimacy. This
begins to occur throughout the comfort stage of the interaction,
when you begin making the conversation last further than 5
minutes.
Building a ‘You’ & ‘Her’ Connection. To create a personal feeling
of intimacy, to create this personal connection between you and
her, as if you are a secret group who has information about the
world which no one else would understand.
How to make an approach seem natural - You might notice that
you do end up meeting strangers, a lot of the time an interaction
happens, that is when you begin talking, or interacting with a
stranger; the reason for your ‘coming together’ was that
something ‘situational’ occurred.
It might be that you notice something situational about the
person you spot, “I think that outfit is great”, “your so happy”,
something you state about yourself “I’m in such a good mood”,
or something about the environment “Its great in here isn’t it?” it
could be that the song in the background is progressing towards
a peak.
One of the things it can be is that you two seem to share various
things in common, for example you might be dancing in the
same manner, or matching each other’s vibe energy, for example
moving in the same rhythm, smiling in the same manner.
Commonality has been shown by scientists and economist
theorists to be one of the main cause for partnerships, as it
lowers costs experienced as an individual as you work together
producing synergies as a team. Its just a moment where you
suddenly acknowledge that your both notseparate identities,
you both are together under some kind of shared context and
you point this out.
Be interesting, learn about her. Build her emotional investment
in the interaction through a series of steps. This is the essence of
escalation. Building her effort in maintaining the interaction, you
then pace her effort and then use this as a springboard for your
further escalation of soft-testing her.
If you’re struggling to get information so you can know more
about her. Then try listening to her ‘buzzwords’, challenge her
opinion. After she says a fact about herself, give her a pause so
you make sure she has time to expand on what she is saying. If
she doesn’t expand you can ‘paraphrase’ this is where you
summarize what she said with a question mark on the end (?) or
you can simply say ‘And?’ to have her explain further what she
means. Rather than rushing onto asking more questions.
This is a dangerous part of the conversation period where you
opener can just run out. Or you might just find yourself asking
interview questions like the girl your speaking to is, a suspect in
a police station for questioning.
If she talks about her ambitions being a doctor and that she’s
very career focused. You can mention that you value hard work,
and give her an somewhat jokey illustrative guide of how your
lives might both fit together in five years’ time. “Haha, I’d have
to be the cook in the house with you doing all those long late
night shifts? I bet you can’t cook right, you don’t seem the
cooking kind of girl”. This way she will be imagine you together
which makes that reality more primed and believable to her than
other alternative realities, making her have more emotional
investment in you over those potential choices (you seem more
reliable, she can imagine it better, etc.).
Learning about her. It’s important to learn about her during this
stage, listen to the things that makes her different and mention
them. If she wiggles her nose when she talks, mention it! If she
stands in a peculiar way or has a cool/husky/funny voice then
you should mention that;
 “what do you do?”
 “Where do you live?”
 “What university did you go?”
 “what did you want to be when you grow up?”
 “What would your ideal life look like?”
Sometimes you won’t get a lot of signals from a girl, this is why
you need to keep on attempting to escalate her responsiveness
because this gives you a signal, when you come to a point where
she isn’t progressing any further, this lets you know how
interested the girl currently is in you.
In hypnosis, if you don’t manage to get someone go to the next
stage of a phenomena, you backtrack onto the previous
phenomena, and use phenomena similar to that, and then
springboard from those phenomena back on to attempting to
move to the previously failed phenomena.
One of the common mistakes that would-be-seducers make is
that they tend to ask questions, without fully listening to the
answers and not expanding the story further. They just hear the
answer and continue to the next question. Stick with her answers
and don’t rush onto the next question!!!! Get more information
from her by paraphrasing and reflecting her information back.
Remember, these questions can often be boring as she’s probably
answered them a billion times. For me I don’t mind I personally
like talking about myself, but for many girls they’d rather find
something different and interesting to talk about.
There is nothing particularly bad about these conversational
topics but remember the reason your talking to each other is
because there is kind of this shared energy between you, these
other details are more kind of qualifying whether you should be
speaking to this person, rather than being positive and having a
good time with this person.
Every answer that she gives you to questions, it’s important that
you somehow relate what she’s saying to your experience, this
creates a sense of commonality, and therefore implies that you
have synergistic zero sum benefits from working together.
So if she states that she studies business at university, you can
talk about how you studied it in high school. If she mentions that
she wanted to be a dolphin trainer when she grows up, mention
that you think animals are cool and you want to go travelling or
go on a safari, and get her to imagine what it would be like if
you both shared the trip.
If she talks about her ambitions being a doctor and that she’s
very career focused. You can mention that you value hard work,
and give her an somewhat jokey illustrative guide of how your
lives might both fit together in five years’ time. “Haha, I’d have
to be the cook in the house with you doing all those long late
night shifts? I bet you can’t cook right, you don’t seem the
cooking kind of girl”. This way she will be imagine you together
which makes that reality more primed and believable to her than
other alternative realities, making her have more emotional
investment in you over those potential choices (you seem more
reliable, she can imagine it better, etc.).
The same applies in seduction. If a girl rejects your touch; for
example you were touching her back and she shrugs you off.
Then its important in response to this, that you back off slightly,
and don’t increase any touching towards intimate areas such as
her back until you’ve escalated responsiveness in other areas
such as eye contact, duration of the conversation, and depth and
sharing of secrets. For example, you might retreat back to merely
touching her forearm, and then eventually move forwards again,
and then progress onto touching her arm a little more, before re
attempting to move to for example touching her back. The same
applies for any of the other escalation recommendations also, for
example the exchange of secrets, or small favors, or eye contact.
Of course you can increase the responsiveness of any type of
phenomena throughout an interaction by focusing on soft
compliance testing and pacing and leading the response in the
direction you want. But for attraction between “You and her”
you need to focus on four escalations.
You need to be escalating, or increasing the conditioned
increment of response in four areas. By doing this she will be
conditioned to respond to you, or have this interaction with you
which she cannot achieve from anyone else without significant
effort, thereby causing you to have a slightly monopoly over her,
that is to say “she is emotionally invested”
i) eye contact (duration & frequency of)
ii) sharing of secrets (quantity and quality)
iii) Touch (from light touches to petting)
iv) physical proximity. (from a metre standing away to
leaning etc. on each other).
Thoughts follow situations. If you create a situation that looks
like she’s going to close, then she’s going to close. If you’ve
managed to meet all the criteria on the above list without giving
away that your ‘stealing her value’ then she’ll comply and
respond to any following test.
When your being indirect, you want to be increasing these four
things, and all these four things should never be given away that
you’re doing it to increase the amount of interaction you’re
getting with each other. So I see it as, you use a guise or a
gimmick in order to get say more touch, so you never give away
that you really want touch, so you use another situation to create
the touch, like in the cinema where to guy yawns to get the
touch, that’s the classic example of how to get touch and you
always have a reason for getting the touch, it’s like in a bar
when you’re like “let’s go to the bar” and you put your arm
around her to take her to the bar, the reason I’m touching her
isn’t because I’m trying to get more touch accepted into the
relationship, that I’m trying to condition ‘its ok to touch’ the
reason I’m touching is because I’m trying to go to the bar. Or the
reason I’m touching is “oh I really like this top” (grabs hold of
the back of her top) “who’s it made by” and I’m now touching
her back.
I’ve designed a range of attraction routines that people play with
each other to build up the relationship between two people, the
reason we use these games is to misdirect the attention away
from the fact that your increasing eye contact, revealing secrets,
increasing the amount of kino and are entering each other’s
personal space and onto the silliness of a game or conversation
about something completely devoid of the agent of ‘liking’
someone.
Approaching
Approaching – there are a series of routines that guys and girls
play in bars and nightclubs in order to build the physical contact
between each other.
I’ve spent a great deal of time people watching. I’ve noticed that
girls and guys will ask for lighters & Cigarettes from people just
to create a conversation and not necessarily because they smoke.
Also in many cases people ask for lighters even when they have
one in their pocket anyway. You often hear of young guys
buying lighters to take out with them on a night out not because
they smoke, but so that they can light cigarettes for girls and
therefore gain a conversation.
Another more intimate way to light a cigarette is to light it buy
touching the end of someone else’s cigarette while it is in their
mouth as you suck on your own cigarette, this creates physical
intimacy of both of your faces and you can use this as an
opportunity to look her straight in the eyes.
Asking to take a photo on a digital camera. A lot of guys and
girls will take out a digital camera with them not just to gain
photographs of themselves having fun in order to convey social
value with their internet friends. Also they use it as a pivot in
order to create interactions with strangers, as the strangers have
to take the photograph. Girls will often pass their camera to guys
to take a picture in order to create a conversation, asking the guy
to take a photograph of them. Then the guy will traditionally
take a photo of himself as a joke, or have a photo with the group
of girls afterwards in order for him to try and create more
interaction with them. All in all allowing further conversation
from originally being strangers without ever conveying interest
as the gimmick offers a distraction from the fact that we are
attractive and opposite genders out in a darkened room for no
particular reason.
Here are some suggestions of gimmick openers to open with;
i) Pretend you know them already is a guise that many
people use to attract the opposite sex. It allows a
conversation to begin about the friend that you
know that looks just like them without making it
apparent that your “hitting on them” this allows you
to progress through the conversation without being
noticed as trying to steal value from them, while
they discover the good qualities about you.
ii) High Fives. When you see someone who looks at
you, or a cool moment happens perhaps that a song
hits a beat or that you catch the eye of someone close
to you. It can be good to give them a high five. “Give
me a high five, up a above, down before… ah way
too slow.”
iii) Asking for the time, it’s a old time technique to open
up a conversation with a stranger to learn what the
time is. The way you can continue this interaction
beyond them just blurting out the number is you can
set the time on a watch while you have the stranger
stand there and watch you set the time.
iv) Bang into people by accident and apologize. A lot of
guys and girls will bump into each other ‘accidently’
just to build a conversation through the apology of
knocking them.
v) Borrowing a chair or another object item that
belongs to the venue in order to start a conversation
“Is anybody using that chair?”.
vi) “Hey guys, does anyone have a pen I really need to
Borrow one”
vii) Accidentally spill their drink so you can offer to buy
them a new one. Then you buy them a drink to
make up for it, and use this guise to encourage a
conversation.
In addition to these approaches you can use many of the
escalation guises as openers, for example I often use the nail
vanish on guys Routine the “I’m getting my hair dyed” routine.
There’s also a cheat, I call it the performer cheat. The way you
use it goes like this “hey, I’ve just got back from a gig, I’m a
performer actually and I’m just cooling down, is it ok if I show
you some stuff?” alternatively you can use it saying that you’re
on the way to a gig, either today or tomorrow and that your just
heating up. It doesn’t matter if you’re not a performer because
you can simply say that you run workshops on body language
or some sort of thing, I often say it even if I haven’t had a gig all
week.
Once you’ve used the performer cheat then you can go onto
other routines and use them as the opener in addition and then
move back to the performer thing at a later moment if you so
choose. So I might brush past her hands and say “you’ve got
really cold hands, are you sure you don’t have circulation
problems, I’m always really warm, how come it’s always the guy
who’s really warm and the girl who’s really cold.”
From here I can then continue to use escalation routines, that
increase the physical touch, proximity, and regularity of eye
contact so that these phenomena become conditioned and a
habitual pattern for the mind of the girl I’m speaking to.
If you’re worried about the fact that you’re not a performer, you
can simply perform the basic palm reading routine that’s
outlined in the following escalating section of this book, and also
use this basic suggestion routine that I’m also going to cover.
Opening lines and conversations to use
during opening.
By using topics during the opener that allow you to achieve eye
contact, touch, and other phenomena, that meanwhile distract
the agent from the fact that your ‘hitting on them’ are important
as these will allow you get far down the line of seducing him or
her before he or she realizes that you are the driving force in the
increased interaction between you two, this is known in the
seduction community as the ‘indirect approach’.
We all have many areas of utility in our lives that are pushing
for our time and attention, and the reality is that if you ask a
person before they are in ‘love’ with you whether they are
attracted to you they will likely say no. People value their time
and effort based on how much utility they perceive will result
from the interaction compared to all other opportunities that
they could derive utility from.
The way you cause someone to discover how much they like you
to the extent that it is love is by leading them down a track
where the feelings of attraction derive from the activities that
you both participate with each other, from the time, effort,
proximity, sharing of secrets, ease of eye contact and the
intimacy of touch that you both feel comfortable with each other.
The way we reach this plateau is by progressively conditioning
the participant to believe that touch etc is acceptable without
alerting the agent to our intentions. The way we do this is by
using various guises, or excuses for the reason we are interacting
with the agent.
Common guises to use;
 “Having a convincing reason for their attention, Without
looking like a utility thief”
 Urgency. You’ve probably had this technique used on
you by marketers and advertisers many times, the usual
format is “Buy now before you lose this opportunity
forever! Once in a lifetime offer.” The way to use this to
lock-in the attention of girls is to state that you urgently
need an opinion on something and it’s your sense of
urgency that creates the intent for the interaction.
 False time constraint “I’ve got to get back to my friends
in a minute.” This gives you an apparent excuse for
talking to the girl as if what you have to say is as
particular importance that you need to say it even
though you’ve got to get back to your friends, while at
the same time reassuring her that you’re not ‘hitting on
her’.
 Intenseness of message. Is it a highly emotional message,
is the message delivered loudly and confidently. i.e.
You’re really excited and can’t help but talk to everyone.
 Sounding like you’ve delivered the message a thousand
times. Hence the message isn’t been said just because
you fancy her or because you believe she’s particularly
special or important.
 Displaying a large emotion that reinforces the concept
that the message is true. You are genuinely memorized
by something, like you might love the sound of your
own voice and opinion and you comment on the clothes,
environment, people around you.
Once you have used a guise, then you have opened up the
conversation and it’s important that you progress through the
stages of increasing attraction without alerting attraction,
therefore we may use a number of guises during every routine
that allows the touch or eye contact to increase as to avoid the
girl thinking that we are trying to ‘steal’ her utility her sexuality
based upon her physical looks for our own utility rather than
creating a situational that is mutually beneficial because you
‘understand each other’ or ‘it just felt right’ because of the
frequency of touch or the intense emotional state perhaps
created by a sense of urgency combined with a physical
intimacy.
There is a lot of information about on the opposing method; the
direct approach or natural game, although obviously every
author has their own individual input and it may vary from
writer to writer it’s the belief of this author that when you
announce your attracted to a girl yet she hasn’t significantly
invested in you, then she has no barriers to leave your ‘market’
she has nothing stopping her, and therefore she will leave
because there will always be other opportunities, you need to
appreciate that unlike banks, mobile phone networks, etc where
there is more customers than there is producers of the service, in
manipulation or pickup there is as many producers of ‘human
connection’ as there is customers.
This makes it a perfectly competitive market and unless she is
locked in (because of significant investment to your market) then
she simply is going to leave if you try to imply that your ‘locked
into her’ or require any kind of favor or benefit from her ability
to produce.
Therefore upon approaching a girl, If you go up to a girl. Do not
tell her that you like her, do not tell her that she is special. As she
will simply turn away and continue her life with all the potential
suitors that are already more accessible to her, or happily
continue with her career or day to day concerns etc. that already
demanding enough as it is.
A common way to avoid creating issues of seeming like you’re
interested in a girl by walking straight up to her and beginning
to talk to her is to talk to people around her who aren’t who your
trying to seduce, for example you could talk to her male friends,
or talk to her friend who you don’t find attractive until she
comes back to the group, this way you find yourself talking to
the girl you think is attractive without looking like your trying to
gain her affections.
Another method that we will further explain in this section of
the book involves guiding her attention onto another matter that
allows you to indirectly get her into conversation and for you to
progress the conversation through sexual stages without her
noticing your intent (because you temporary place your
attention onto trivial matters, such as commenting on situational
factors, common factors – things you share in common or
commonly understood opinions or judgments about the world).
When you talk to her, you need to say something as if it’s
pressing or important, like your curious about the answer to a
question or curious about a commonality to both share in the
environment.
“What you drinking” , “wow this place is cool”. For the shared
commonality, because you merely just commenting on the fact
that the venue is so cool, or that dress you were going to buy, or
that its really hot, or any other situational factor, it seems like the
reason your mentioning or opening the girl is simply to make a
comment out of your excitement for your own belief in the fact
that your stating, and then expecting comment.
Situational openers are your comment on things that are
immediately obvious in the environment, for example you might
comment on her outfit and say “Hey I was shopping for a friend
the other day, and I was thinking about buying that. I think it’s
in at the minute, you have pretty good style.”
By doing this you will find that you’re more confident that using
scripts or lines because you won’t have to revise and memorize
them before you go out to practice the techniques described in
this book because you can simply comment on things that you
see. “Hey that cocktail looks great, can I try a bit I was thinking
about buying it but I didn’t know what it is”. Other examples of
situational openers could be “Those boots are awesome…where
did you get them?” and “I think this club is amazing.”
If an opener fails there is only two reasons why, and both those
can be recalibrated out and pushed back into being a successful
opener.
Reason one, is they will refuse to further escalate the interaction
with you if they think you’re trying to get something else out of
them, so by appearing like you’re really engaged in what you’re
saying makes it more believable that you mean what you say.
Another reason would be, the person wasn’t expecting to be
spoke to and hasn’t got a unconscious framework on how to
respond (you can easily fix this).
I would say this technique works 80% of the time, and when it
doesn’t its always one of those two reasons, which can easily be
turned around because your not actually being rejected as you
never said anything that could be dubbed as you ‘trying it on’.
And the following techniques demonstrate that your trying to
find the answer to a question that you’ve been thinking about.
This is referred to as an opinion opener.
“Hi I’m a magician, my job is to deceive people, who do you
think lies more men or women” This opener is an opinion
opener as its asking for the opinion of the girl, because you titled
yourself as a magician and stated that it’s your job then this
makes it seem as if the reason your talking to her isn’t because
you’re interested in her but instead because you just want to
know the answer to the question.
By talking about a topic such as ‘who lies more’ rather than
‘doing a magic trick’ this means you don’t’ come across like
you’re a dancing monkey who is just trying to perform for the
girl to impress her or because you’re getting paid to be there but
rather because you think it’s an interesting conversation to talk
about with strangers.
Hey, I’m a magician, me and my friends were having a
conversation, but we need a girls opinion; who do you think is
more sexy David Blaine or Derren Brown?”
“You have like a really great energy, you seem so happy and
smiley, are you having a good day?”
“Someone banged my head, does it feel bumped.”
“Hey, my friend worries he’s fallen out of love with his
girlfriend, me and my friends were wondering? What’s better to
be loved and not love them in return or to love someone and
they not love you in return? Is it better to chase or be chased?”
A common line is to pretend that you know someone, when you
don’t really know them. You might say “OMG…You look really
familiar…How do I know you? Were you here last week? “ this
allows you to gain a moment talking to someone who otherwise
you wouldn’t have been able to speak to while not conveying
that you at all interested in them sexually. Thereby preventing
her discovering her own feelings for you rather than you being
focused on expressing your undying affections for her.
There needs to always be a reason for speaking to someone,
always an excuse for escalation. If you see someone who’s
tanned you might comment and ask whether they’ve been
abroad and then mention that you are looking to go travelling.
You can’t just simply say “hey nice tan” because then it seems
like your merely trying to chat to the person for some other
reason i.e. because your attracted to them, not because of the
guise.
Conversations like this give the girl something to talk about that
seems interesting, and they don’t need to struggle about what to
talk about next because you’ve set the topic. These conversations
tend to last a long time and will allow you to gain more
interaction with the girl.
The reason I use the line “I’m a magician, who do you think is
more sexy, David Blaine or Derren Brown?” as this allows me to
mention that I’m a magician, which gives me performer status
and thereby disqualifies me as a potential suitor as I’m simply
doing my job as a magician and talking to strangers while
asking a question that evokes sexual and attraction feelings in
the girls as they imagine the qualities of both the magicians
mentioned before deciding the answer to my question.
It’s easy to think that by talking to someone of the opposite sex
that your conveying that you’re interested in them, but this is
simply not the case, by focusing on having a reason why your
speaking, and speaking with that intent, that you would have if
it was your job then you will not come across as sleazy and
trying it on, per say.
Physical ways of Introducing yourself
 Shaking hands – squeezing their hand slightly too tight
as a joke. You can also ask them if they know any secret
handshakes and place your middle finger over their
hand, and tell them that’s the freemason handshake that
you saw on a documentary last week.
 Hugging – hugging them after saying something fun,
interesting or cool. It should be a really good moment
where something fun or cool has just been said or that its
just a really positive happy moment for whatever reason
or that you are both laughing or crying over something.
 Kissing on the cheek – The European Kiss, you can kiss
them on both cheeks alternatively in order to discover
whether they lean in to kiss you on the lips when you go
between them.
 Leading them by holding their forearm and pulling
them slightly in your direction with them as this can
seem that your simply walking or moving somewhere
and are thinking about that rather than it being obvious
that the only reason your holding her arm is because
you want to increase the levels of physical contact to
progress the sexual vibe of the interaction.
Physical Routines to use on someone’s hands
and forearms.
There are a range of routines that involve hands and forearms.
That don’t portray your sexual intent, but while increasing the
sexual proximity between potential suitors. Hands and forearms,
are quite sexual parts of the body and are used in many sexual
activities, so by coming into a position where you can
comfortably play with the hand of a mate your trying to seduce
you can put ideas in their head through subtle pushes, rhythms,
movements and pulls of their hands.
But before we reach this opportunistic destination we need to
create a misdirection that will allow us to gain access to the
ability to play with their hands without making it obvious that
we have an ulterior motive or sexual intent.
One routine that I use a lot, I actually got from my friend when
we were younger. He claimed he had really soft hands, and
would have girls feel them. He would moisturize his hands
before he went out. I thought his hands were actually quite
rough, but without a doubt this routine got him a lot of girls.
The modern use of this routine, that I use goes like this; I think
you look “21 years old” (guess age) “How old are you?”
“Really. Because you’ve got really young/old looking hands,
like, the lines are really deep or really smooth. Feel my hands,
they are really soft right? (smiles and laughs) these hands have
barely worked a day in their life.” There are lots of bits and
phrases in this routine that you have to change for every
circumstances.
I only make the joke about my hands not working a day in their
life because that is my persona, your persona doesn’t really have
to be of any particular type or genre, you merely have to have
something interesting to say. I like this routine because it allows
you to build kino escalation such as holding and feeling their
hand, and it gets them to feel and touch your hands as a
response, thereby creating physical intimacy.
Leading them by lightly holding their forearm, perhaps your
taking them to the bar or your just travelling from one place to
another, while you do this it can be seen as your ‘accidentally’
holding onto their forearm to kind of guide them to where you
trying to get to.
Cracking their fingers. For them. I always make a joke that I can
only crack parts of my body on my right hand side. And I
mention how some people don’t like the sound of people
cracking their fingers and about whether it really does give you
arthritis.
Touch hands “You’ve got really cold hands… maybe you’ve got
circulation problems”, “Why are girls always cold, and the guy
always warm. You know like when in bed the girl always needs
the guys warmth. That’s my warmth!”
The testosterone estrogen thing. You compare the length of their
ring finger to their middle finger. If their middle finger is a lot
longer than their ring finger then they have high estrongen
levels and really low testrone levels. I always use this
conversation as a spring board
Thumby wars. This is a common game that you can easily find
description on how to play if your not aware of it. The game
usually begins with the line “1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a thumby war”
This is where you hold each others hand in a kind of clasp and
you play a game where you have to pin each others thumb
down, first. Who ever has the strongest and most tactful thumb
successesfully captures the thumb of their opponent and wins
the game.
The Star Trek gesture. How wide can you get your fingers apart
between the middle and the ring?. You press each others hand
against each other and ask whether they were a gymnast in
school or are double jointed because they can get their hands
apart really wide.
Palm reading – name how many kids they are going to have
because of the lines at the side of the hand. Name how many
relationships they are going to have based on how many times
their love line has chains in it. Check out a book on palm reading
for these features. I wouldn’t personally recommend trying to
learn palm reading, its long and complicated and will take
months of practice to get any good. Instead I recommend just
checking out those two things that I have mentioned here.
Talk about their nails, and compare them with yours. Mention
they are too long/too short, or the color they have chosen. Talk
about whether you should wear black nail vanish Mention the
moon thing and say that “the bigger moon you have, the more
you kind of feel a connection people but find it hard to express
yourself”.
“My friend says I have girly muscles… Show me your muscles”
(touch their muscle and try and push it down) hmm. Your
clearly a girly girl.
Comparing size of hands. “Your hands are really girly, my
hands could dominate your hands. Are you strong, do you think
you could hold my arm down. I wonder if I could hold your
hand down”. This routine allows you to briefly almost play fight
with each other, and slightly sexually hold each other down in a
really subtle way, this allows you to subtly evoke sexual muster
under the guise of doing something else ‘i.e. comparing hand
size’.
Chinese burns/resistence to pain. Pinching pull of the skin. “Do
you have stretchy skin?” Pull on it to see who has the most
stretchy skin.
Check out their small girly muscles. You’ve got a really big
muscles for a girl.
“Are you double jointed” (as you grab hold of their hand) and
then you try and pull the thumb back and say “you look like
your double jointed”.
Arm wrestling.
Guess when it gets upto the point on your forearm. With your
eyes closed but they always guess to early.
Blind mouse, dumb mouse, deaf mouse and you have to call
stop.
Who’s hands are the softest hands. “Feel my hands, they’ve
barely worked a day in their life. Some guys have like builders
hands; I once had a job in a bank once, for three weeks then I
quit”.
During the card trick ‘Two card Monte’ Which is where you
simply do a double lift and these causes a card to magically
transform in their hand from one card to another card. You can
have them press down on your hand that is holding out the card
that they had previously seen. As they press down on that card
it magically changes into another card by the time that they life
their hand.
Face routines.
You’ve got dimples, then you touch their dimples. “Look at your
dimples, they are kind of cute like a baby”, “They make you look
really young and fresh faced”.
You’ve got freckles, then you touch their freckles. Make a
comment about the freckles “Check out the freckles”, “your
freckles are cute, but I thought only ginger people got them”.
Let me check out your ear rings, and then you hold onto their
ear. I think my ex girlfriend has them.
What’s that perfume your wearing, sniff and touch their neck. I
think my sister has that perfume.
You’ve got a great smile, but Apparently you can only tell if a
smile is genuine by covering up their eyes.
You’ve got like this little chin dimple. And then you touch it.
“This guy bumped into me with his fist, really hard. I felt like I’d
been hit, feel it, it’s a bump right?” (get them to touch my
forehead)…. Hmmm, (pause) “maybe foreheads are supposed to
be that bumpy” (start feeling their forehead).
You’ve got baby cheeks, “Grab hold of their cheeks” (laugh).
Guess their age “You look 23” What you can do to make it fun is
either guess a lot younger or older than they really are, using
your excuse for them having no wrinkles, or the odd wrinkle as
a reason why. “But you don’t have any wrinkles… wait let me
check”.. typically when I go to touch their face they might frown,
then I say “Don’t frown it doesn’t help”.
Hair routines. There needs to be routines in order to touch a
girl’s hair without conveying that she’s amazing and you need
her. Because the moment you touch a girls hair or back of their
head, it implies very sexual activities. Therefore it’s really
important to find ways to hold the back of her head using her
hair etc. without letting her know you’re interested.
You can play with their hair through the exploration of “What
would your hair look like if it was up.” Grab their hair and pull
it up. “hmm you look kind of like a librarian”.
Hey I need an opinon on something “I’ve just dyed my hair, (or
am about to) what color do you think would look best, like what
color would you say it is now… hmm because I was thinking
about maybe going your color, haha but I didn’t want to look
‘too dark’ (or ‘too blonde), (play with your hair kinda indicating
them to touch it also) what do you think about the cut?”
“OMG I can’t believe you just did that, that was the silliest (face
or thing to say) are you sure your not blonde? (Grab hold of hair
and begin investigating her roots.) Or if they are blonde you can
say “No wonder your blonde” and then investigate whether
they are naturally blonde. Or “your far too intelligent to be
naturally blonde” and start playing with their hair and
investigating their roots.
A lot of girls and guys will go up to each other and just ruffle up
each others hair as a kind of joke. As much as this might piss
each other off that’s not the reason that they did it, what they
were doing is try to jump to that level of kino escalation without
going through the earlier stages. Therefore ‘ruffling’ with
peoples hair as a joke is more acceptable later on into the kino
escalation progression.
“Hey check this out”, “I’ve been learning to do a French play. I
learnt how to French platt” (start playing with their hair) it
doesn’t matter if you really can do a French platt or not, because
if you can’t you can get them to teach you how, and if you can
then you’ve successfully done something cool to their hair.
You’ve got a bit of thread in your hair (Palm a piece of thread
and take that hand to their head… pull the thread from their
hair) “hmm let me have a look” (continue looking for more).
Lip routines
You do really pouty lips. (point to their lips) then point to your
own lips. “ I can’t pout like you can”.
I love your lipstick color. It’s kind of cool. My best friend wears
that color all the time.
Your teeth are really straight, did you have braces as a kid (
nearly Touch their lips as you explain).
You’ve got a little something in your teeth. (self point to your
own teeth as you smile). I think you better get that out, (move
your hand towards their lips as If your moving to help them) I
would help but I think that would be gross.
Claim you can read minds, and ask her to think of a word, And
you will read which word it is. Point at her lips claiming that
she’s making the sound of the word when she thinks about it.
Lean in really close as if your doing that to think about how your
own lips are moving to compare, and work out what word she is
thinking about. Get in close, reduce the distance between your
faces as if you need to be close to her lips in order to read the
ideomotor ‘lip reading’ sound that they are making.
Take a random guess as to what word you think it is. And if you
guess wrong who cares. If you want to really read minds, I
recommend you read a book on magic or use the hypnotic
techniques throughout this book to convince them that they
were thinking of the word you announce.
Do you know that whibble sound that you can make with babies
lips. (play with their lips) does the baby make the sound or does
the lips do it. Its like when you talk into a fan, is it the fan that
makes the funny voice or is it you putting it on.
The forehead kiss thing. Typically after giving a hug or a really
emotional moment, it suddenly becomes acceptable to kiss a girl
on the forehead to slightly mock her. You can kiss her and say
“aww such a baby”. Or if you slightly hurt her, or accidentally
bash her head you can kiss her on the forehead to make her feel
better as a joke.
Tongue routines
Does your tongue curl up round the edges, you know how some
people can make that roll with their tongue, I find it really weird.
How long is your tongue? Can you touch your noise with it?
your tongue is really skinny, mine is really thick
Eye contact routines.
There needs to be guises in order to get away with talking to a
guy or girl and looking them straight in the eye.
I may tend to joke that I can hypnotize someone if I look them
straight in the eyes.
You’ve got big eyes. My eyes are really small. By using the guise
of ‘eye size comparing, you can create eye contact for long
enough periods to allow the natural processes of love to come
about.
Can compare the eyes of a person and talk about how dark or
light they are or talk about the color. I tend to mention that in 70
years the only eye color that will exist is brown because it’s the
more dominant gene.
Closing
This entire book has being essentially focused on how to build
the perfect social interaction. However during this chapter we
have been discussing a combination of soft compliance and
individual routines that you can use to pace and lead their
responsiveness, to escalate the fascination from the interaction
while testing them in order to know where you at with them.
For this reason, closing deserves its own separate section in the
book also.
Phone Number – How do you get a girls phone number? There
is a almost guaranteed technique to get a girls number. If she has
briefly displayed some fascination with you, and you have
touched her on the forearm then the likelihood of getting her
number is apparently 1 in 5. From my personal experience if you
state that you have to get back to your friends or leave (A False
Time constraint) and have a reason for getting the number “You
like coffee because I know this great place” then your 70-80% of
the time going to get a girls number.
Kiss Closing – How do you get a kiss from a hot girl you’ve just
met? I think kiss closing deserves a separate mention when
discussing individual routines and approaches to build a sense
of you and her intimacy.
OK. Firstly, anyone in the world will kiss you! I mean there’s
nothing necessary dangerous or wrong about kissing. It’s not
particularly pleasurable either. The idea is that it’s a progression
that might lead somewhere, and that’s the excitement.
I’d like to also point out, that kissing is more intimate that sex.
Many people will refuse to kiss during sex with people who they
aren’t having some kind of emotional relationship with, because
it feels wrong.
So this shows us that kissing is more important than sex but also
very achievable providing there is some kind of emotional
background.
If you’re holding hands, then there’s certain soft compliance tests
that you can run in order to check that she’s moving with you to
the next stage of the interaction. For example you can tilt your
head and see if she tilts her head. You can kiss her on the cheek
during a hug then closely move over to kiss the other cheek and
see if she leans in. By creating the pressure that you have to
leave in a moment will encourage the kiss to happen when
otherwise a good moment for it might never have occurred.
The false time constraint, by there being pressure of your
eventual leave, it pushes the relationship to be built quickly. This
might mean that you give the impression that your not going to
be there forever. Or that the end of the night is progressing, if
you look at people getting together in bars and nightclubs, they
either do it at the beginning of the night or towards the ‘gold
rush’ at the end.
The eye eye lip triangle, by looking at a girl in a certain way
where you keep looking at her lips then her eyes, causes a
person to naturally mimic that response in return. Babies
naturally do this in order to mimic cues from their mothers
expression. By keeping your eyes looking big and focusing on
the person it will cause this natural urge.
Personal Space. By maintaining a distance of roughly half a
meter away from someone you will be in their personal space.
Sometimes this might be I gently lean my knee against their leg,
or some other apparent accidental form of breaking down the
barriers between you too.
All the progression of these steps needs to be done under the
guise that it’s a complete accident, else it will seem as if the
attraction is being forced, or that you are more into her than she
is into you and this will make you appear unattractive.
Leaning your head to the side. Or catching her lean her head to
the side, people do this as a soft compliance test to see if they are
with you, or you are with them. It’s a lead to see if you copy.
Sometimes I’ve been forced into feeling attracted to someone
because they’ve tilted their head to the side while I’m close to
them and then I’ve copied them and I’ve found myself wanting
to kiss them.
The European Kiss. If your not sure if your interaction is leading
up to a kiss then it’s a good idea to try some more compliance
tests. For example you could hug her and kiss her on the cheek
and then more over to the other cheek, if she leans in almost to
kiss you as you slowly move from kissing one side of her cheek
to the other then this shows that she’s thinking about kissing
you.
Purse your lips. When you think about how you lips feel. Then
suddenly you give off signals that your thinking about your lips,
it suddenly makes the girl very conscious about her lips.
Presumably we give off ide motor signals that communicates
what we are thinking about. And then the other person catches
on and feels the same in response (assuming compliance).
How to actually get the girl into your bed? I get asked this by a
number of guys.
A kiss, in principle, is a deeper emotional exchange lead up, than
sex. Both girls and guys often experience sexual want, for
reasons other than particularly fancying or feeling emotionally
connected to someone. As regular need, like the need to eat, or
sleep, or get outside the house or get some rest.
If your achieving the levels of emotional binding, associated
with kissing a girl, then by progressing the regularity of these
kisses, with the escalation of touch. Without breaking the
relationship by ejecting from set.
Part of escalating from the kiss to sex, is you now both each
know that you like each other. This means, that its now safe
territory to play hard to get. This might mean that the girl coveys
disinterest as a kind of play in order to have you chase her. This
building of push and pull, of alternatively chasing and being
chased builds the sexual tension further. Causing the emotional
bond, that the sex achieves to be more intense.
To check that to go from kissing to sex is appropriate you can
drop ideas. Like that you should spend some time together, go
and eat some food at your place. Or watch a dvd.
You also should be progressing the intimacy of the kino
esculation so that your touching more than abdomen. For
example holding her hair behind her neck etc. Also by this point
it shouldn’t just be you who is pushing the progression of touch
to intimate parts, she should be pushing her luck with the
privacy abuse of the touch also.
You need to isolate the agent, so you both by yourself away from
prying eyes.
Some books, recommend that you focus on building a lifestyle,
where you have a nice place for the girl to come back to. Your
prepared and ready so that you know which tubes to take, or
how much it costs in the taxi etc. so there are no hiccups when
working out how to get back to the safe location. For a lot of
guys and girls, you might still live at home with your parents, or
have flatmates who often dislike strangers in their house etc.
Therefore as annoying as it is, you really should think about how
best to have a lifestyle that achieves your ambitions as a young
player.
Providing you can get a kiss, then all you need to do is overcome
the complications and resistance associated with sex. And you
will be able to successfully get a girl into your bed. Remember to
come up with reasons why;
“To watch a DVD”, “Because it saves money on taxi”, “to get
some nacho’s with cheese”, remember never mention the real
reason ‘that your attracted to her’ always use the misdirection as
it clouds over what would be a awkward moment and allows
you to progress into the next moment.
As a seduction instructor, who grew up in this industry before it
took off in popularity in 2005, I tend to see things differently.
From growing up with hypnosis; I’m used to things being
calibrated, judged, and having a sense when something is going
to pull off 100%.
In hypnosis, and covert hypnosis we can often have a sense
when we have someone complying to our word to the letter, so
they do everything exactly how you specify and they almost
seem to be copying your every precise movement and gesture
that they will follow the next suggestion you give regardless of
how silly or unethical it sounds. Of course the routine is only
100% if someone has passed all of the necessary stages with you,
and arguably if they have done that then they are likely to close
anyway, but by having a routine you avoid any problems, like
running out of what to say etc.
In this new version of persuasion that I have supplied, you have
a very real sense of when someone is complying with you, and
what you need to do if someone isn’t there yet!
Philosophical Put Down’s, Flattery, and
Mocking to gain social steed
“People are willing to pay the highest price ‘their personality’ in
the pursuit of gaining some of the inspiration that the other
person offers.” (Vince Lynch)
This section of the book serves a variety of goals; we want to
cover how to charm, flatter, gain rapport, tell jokes, and insult
people. Therefore this section of the book aims to serve the goals
of demonstrating you have a monopoly over social realms that
others simply cannot compete with.
All social relations, whether its about love, or with strangers
involve some form of power. One player usually has the
dominance and the other doesn’t. Where you are constantly
negotiating resources to get more of what you want, without
making other abilities feel undermined.
Before I continue onto the following section I need to cover a few
things about language and schema activation; According to
various writers such as Harris and Monaco (1978) when
communication is witnessed; it causes those ideas to be primed
or activated in the mind of the listener; that is the listener brings
to mind elements of the said story.
People are good at identifying the topic of a conversation, they
quickly home in on key words that allow them to understand
precisely what is been spoke about and anticipate where the
story is going.
But there are plenty of examples that show we infer meaning
automatically from sentences; For example “The hungry lion
caught the gazelle” pragmatically implies that the lion killed the
gazelle but does not logically imply it.
That is to say, when a listener tries to understand a message;
they make inferences about what the speaker means when they
hear the communication, this process of schema activation,
interpretation of meaning occurs automatically.
As covered earlier in the book; we bargain with other persons
we meet for economic value – that is to say relationships are
formed strategically; where we attempt to form the most
valuable relationship that we are allowed to join considering our
unique talents are interviewed when attempting to acquire
group membership.
That is to say; when we meet others; we are demonstrating what
certain values and qualities we can add to the group; while at the
same time demonstrating respect, and commonality for the
group – that we have shared goals and values.
The way we previously outlined to resolve this dichotomy; the
risk of you been rejected if you appear too socially powerful, but
while at the same time needing to demonstrate socially valuable
qualities in order to be able to be considered eligible to join the
group.
One tactic to resolve this issue of wanting to show desirable
traits but without appearing disrespectful or losing rapport with
the group was to self-depreciate yourself while showing
admirable traits “I’ve made a few movies, but my life lacks
something…” as a way of putting yourself down to gain group
acceptance, we instead recommended that you use a
combination of flattery to the group and the leader while at the
same time demonstrating admirable traits. Throughout the
following section we will show how to use philosophical put
downs and mocking in order to gain social steed.
You can have as much of a competitive advantage as you like
(more pretty, more funny, more intelligent); but if you’re hook-
winked by unscrupous competition then what was it worth. You
need a structure and format for displaying your intelligence,
using humour and disarming your competition without your
audience noticing your attack.
It’s important we learn to show our intelligence, to let it shine;
but unfortunately this means stepping on others shoe’s; if the
person you’re debating with feels as if the exchange isn’t
benefiting them i.e. they are achieving no value from your
participation within the social group, then they will likely vote
for you to be quitted from the group. You being there, talking
with complete strangers has to simultaneously benefit the person
you’re speaking with and the interests of the wider social group.
But equally you being there, being clearly challenging, different,
and respectful if done well, will be totally charming, and the
group may feel honoured to have won over the presence of such
an interesting, intelligent man of the world.
The purpose of this section in the book; is within the frame of
economic-exchange to defeat opponents who are competing for
leadership within an exchange – this occurs in two scenarios. (i)
You are debating with someone in exchange for value; that they
want what you have, and you want what they have and you are
both willing to share some, but not as much as each other would
like.
Therefore you go into a debate in of intellect and other means to
out-wit each other to get what you want. (ii) The other reason
that you argue with someone is because of power, and status,
you might want to put yourself up for election as future
leadership of the group, because you want the fruits that go
along with it, or at least don’t want to forever prevent yourself
from being held in anything other than the lower ranks within
the social group.
Our aim is to acquire all of our partner’s assets while giving up
none of our own. And the best players at this game; can be rated
and ranked in different ways – this can be referred to as status or
popularity; there are lots of different signals of status – money,
being a well-rounded individual, popularity, adaptability. But
for the sake of a measurement, we could say that the highest
ranked individual is the one who receives the most attention
amongst peers, when you
When you enter a social group with confidence. You might
sometimes encounter a situation where the group seems
disinterested in the things you say, in your presence as a form of
defensive strategy to protect their own position in group.
Resistance isn’t as much as an issue as despondence, you cannot
work with a individual who is too busy being pre-occupied by
other concerns, you can’t have them do anything.
How to spark an intellectual feud
"If you don't stand for anything, you for fall for anything" –
quote
Let’s stop dropping subtle inaudible hints about how unique we
are; and wear our competitive advantages on our shoulder. We
are afraid to hold strong viewpoints. But yet we simultaneously
recognize that those who hold strong viewpoints are seen to be
highly attractive individuals.
It is our fear from antagonizing others that stops us showing our
distinctive traits.
The reason we don’t usually hold strong viewpoints – although
we nearly all recognize that those with strong viewpoints
(distinct opinions) are usually seen to be attractive individuals –
is we recognize our own fear of antagonizing others and being
rejected by them for having such a distinctive trait.
We all have radical opinions; we just don’t recognize them as
radical because we rarely take the opportunity to express
ourselves. People want us to be challenging, but we don’t enter
social groups and say exactly what we feel because we don’t
want to be disapproved of, we grow old and we forget what we
really think, and so do others.
People want to be reminded of their own personal identity, the
unique set of beliefs they hold about life, but they don’t have the
powers of concentration required to re-assess all their beliefs; so
they require their social groups, and life experiences to act as a
‘thinking ground’ to allow them to do this.
When I was studying to become a psychotherapist, the reason
we had therapy on ourselves, and explored our personality
using the psychotherapeutic and counselling models with a
trained therapist was because; our personalities set rules and
standards on the world; each of us is completely radical and
hold some wild philosophical position that we rarely voice.
When speaking to someone, you should speak with them as if
you are stripping away the clothing they hide behind, that only
you can see their true unique nature; you should aim to make
them feel truly special, and respected by devoting your full
attention into memorizing, and repeating back their argument;
Abraham Lincoln once famously said “one of the greatest
abilities you can have is to explain the character of the world in
the exact nature that the target sees themselves, by doing this
you make your target believe they are far more interesting than
they really are.
When someone speaks they constantly inadvertently make
postulations. All postulations are made for the purpose of logic,
except unless in the case of humour – where someone might say
something purely for the intent of making people laugh, or
perhaps one may purposely say illogical things as to entertain
the views of others in a social group, to fit in, or purely just to
allow discussion into other more important matters.
All logical arguments postulate. They state such things, and
assert whether they are true or false. For example;
 "Ankara is the capital of Turkey."
 "Humans are the only animals to use language."
 "Christopher Columbus was the first European to sail to
the New World." Kies, D (1995)
By finding the borders of our experience; gives us power.
Breaking boundaries is where the power lies. That’s why a joke
is funny, or having a new experience like riding a roller coaster
or jumping out of a plane is exhilarating.
If your offering represents enough value beyond the costs that it
costs the other participant to interact with you – then the
interaction will continue, and perhaps escalate further – but if
not the relationship will quickly end or never begin in the first
place – as relationships are the pursuit of joint benefit.
I know when we are speaking to others we don’t aim to be
logically correct; as according to philosophy. But I can give you a
reason why its useful to aim to know what position your arguing
from – it gives you confidence. If you know why you believe
what you believe and the counter arguments to it, then when
you meet people – you aren’t scared to voice your opinions
because you know regardless of what your opposition says, you
can hold your own.
Stop there – we have a problem! People don’t care about how
‘right’ you are. You might be perfectly correct about a topic in
every sense, and seem knowledgeable to your audience but if
you are boring, or insulting (by the sense you seem smarter than
their social group) they will want you out. Therefore, we can’t
appear smart purely for the sake of being logically correct; when
you’re trying to be smart – voicing your thoughts, the subtext of
your communication is that your thoughts are more valuable,
and that you deserve respect and a leadership position within
the social group.
In order to make this leadership attempt actually appeal to the
audience, we can’t focus only on the truthfulness of our
argument, we’ve got to win people over; i.e. we’ve got to be
funny, intelligent, understanding, flattering, respecting,
respectful, charming, courageous, challenging, innovative.
Before we make an opinion, lets first get the audience on our
side; assess who are competition is, gently start mentioning
viewpoints and see what happens when it comes to opposition.
By stating an initial opinion; or investigating the opinions of
your competition – you are coaxing the target to say more
information – this can be seen as throwing out the bait. Maybe
you ask a question “What do you think about?” or “Do you
think that A or B is more important?”
Then we can investigate the supporting presuppositions for the
targets final belief; - “What evidence do you have for that?”,
“When did you start believing in this?” During this state we are
data collecting, we are finding out what exceptions they have “Is
there an example where what you’re saying isn’t true?” we find
examples where they are contradicting themselves.
Lastly we exaggerate their argument (Straw man) – This is
where we exaggerate their argument, so large that it
encapsulates far more general details – it acts as a rule about
everything, then we destroy that argument – by showing counter
examples – where the general rule is broken.
Logical Fallacies
The use of intellect shouldn’t be for the sake of truth, because
truth while socializing isn’t the priority, social dominance is; the
best strategy is to listen to your audience, ask questions, and let
them make their own mistakes. The nature of a charmer is to be
charismatic while challenging.
In Philosophy, there is a topic called Logical Fallacies; these are
simple rules that if broken means someone’s argument isn’t
logically sound. They can only defer whether the persons logic
in the argument to come to their final conclusion is logical or
illogical, but cannot by themselves determine truth. You must
use a great deal of tact and pose when using the logical fallacies
to pick apart someone’s arguments – because if the opponent
believes you are attempting to defeat them, they might simply
resort to aggression or other such villainy in order to refuse your
access to the position of leadership.
Furthermore If you point out to the audience the philosophical
mistakes of their debate the audience will disapprove of your
behaviour; because they won’t understand what you mean, and
instead will make assumptions as to why you’re doing the
activity i.e. to mock people, and therefore out of their own
personal fear of becoming mocked they will attempt to through
you out of their social circle as a form of protective mechanism.
For an argument to be good, all the premises made i.e. the vital
points to the argument; must be established and then logically
entail the conclusion – the conclusion should be obvious from
the previous statements – you will rarely meet anyone who does
this; so this makes people easy to mock and belittle and quickly
make yourself seem more intelligent than if you so choose to do
so.
“By a fallacy or sophism – which is commonly understood to be
any unsound mode of arguing, which appears to demand us to
believe in it, and to answer the question at hand – when actually
because of simply logic it is capable of doing so” (S Goodrich,
1919:85)
Fallacies are either logical or non-logical. In every fallacy, the
conclusion either does, or does not follow from the premises.
When the conclusion does not follow from the premises, it is
manifest the fault is in the reasoning, and in that alone; a logical
fallacy is a violation of the rules of reasoning which by simple
means of the argument makes little sense. There are two types of
non-logical argument (fallacy) 1. When the premises are such as
out not to have been assumed 2. When the conclusion is not the
one required, but irrelevant and proves, instead of the assertion
some other proposition resembeling it.
Charm: respect your opponent, while winning
an audience
This whole process is far more interesting if you carry it out,
while smiling, being funny in general, and being socially
valuable; respectfully charming your audience, and adding
information to the discussion that is new and interesting.
The problem is; that the leader of the group; gets nearly all of the
benefits, because he is socially in control; and if we don’t push
our way into the interaction and directly oppose the leader we
will gain nowhere of significant importance.
Besides; it’s fun to push some buttons- and by regularly
practicing your egotism, will give you confidence, will allow
your ego to develop its own character and nature that will
become appealing to others with practice.
In order to get away with displaying ego in a social group;
without self-depreciating your position, is to mildly mock your
competitors before they interrupt you. Often it’s easier to simply
outsmart their positions and then interject your own opinions
into their topic of choice; thereby making you appear more
knowledge in their specialist area than they are – implying that
your well versed in a huge range of knowledge arena’s.
In order to make this leadership attempt actually appeal to the
audience, we can’t focus only on the truthfulness of our
argument, we’ve got to win people over; i.e. we’ve got to be
funny, intelligent, understanding, flattering, respecting,
respectful, charming, courageous, challenging, innovative.
Before we make an opinion, lets first get the audience on our
side; assess who are competition is, gently start mentioning
viewpoints and see what happens when it comes to opposition.
In order to debate with a person; they have to let you – people
tend not to like being argued with, and if you have no right to be
there, then the person your debating with will either just eject
you from the group, or resort to dirty tactics such as personal
insults, violence etc.
By expressing a view, doing something funny, or being
physically attractive – we are showing the flare of our ego.
When you show your ego, you should be sure that you still are
interactive with the group, so be sure to involve people by
asking questions “What do you think about?” or if you are not
sure they will find it easy to voice views about things, ask them
questions that makes it easy for them “What do you think is
more important option A or option B?”
Then we can investigate the supporting presuppositions for the
targets final belief; - “What evidence do you have for that?”,
“When did you start believing in this?” During this state we are
data collecting, we are finding out what exceptions they have “Is
there an example where what you’re saying isn’t true?” we find
examples where they are contradicting themselves.
Lastly we exaggerate their argument (Straw man) – This is
where we exaggerate their argument, so large that it
encapsulates far more general details – it acts as a rule about
everything, then we destroy that argument – by showing counter
examples – where the general rule is broken.
In order to debate with a person; they have to let you – people
tend not to like being argued with, and if you have no right to be
there, then the person your debating with will either just eject
you from the group, or resort to dirty tactics such as personal
insults, violence etc.
So we must perfect the arts of flattery, respect and charm. By
charming our opposition we are afforded the luxury of learning
what holds their argument together, their position, and we are
afforded the time to disassemble their egotism in front of their
group; while appearing charismatic and interesting throughout.
To do this; we are going to have to really understand how to
gain rapport with people, but more than that – we are not a
counsellor, hearing someone’s story; we are meeting someone as
an equal commanding respect while learning about them - But
specifically learning about their intellectual arguments so we can
pick them to pieces.
There are a range of dirty tactics you can use to win an argument
– the typical method is to exaggerate your opponents claim, to
take their proposition beyond its natural limits, giving its
meaning to hold as wide a significance as possible, because the
more general the statement becomes the more numerous are the
objections you can use to contradict it. On the other hand, you
must give your arguments the most specific and narrow
definition as possible to prevent your opponent from doing the
same to you. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at
once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should he
maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may
say, "Why don't you leave by the first train?" Some such claptrap
is always possible.” (Art-of-controversy: Arthur Schopenhauer) –
You can make someone quite ridiculous and feel utterly
defeated.
However; the best way to use contradictory information to what
the speaker has claimed, is to use the information spoke from
their very mouth earlier in the discussion. “When your opponent
states a claim, you must see if it in some way is inconsistent with
the other beliefs to which your opponent has admitted.”
This allows you to use a further tactic to confuse your opponent;
“having them consider meaningless information as if its relevant
to the case” by extending or broadening the context of their
proposition, thereby allowing the consideration of various
arguments, examples where the argument fails causes a vast
amount of information to be considered for your opponent to
continue their argument, causing them to forget their original
point and make further mistakes.
Once we catch someone’s flaws in their argument; then we do a
joke or jest with an element of surprise to make their statements
sound ridiculous (and hilarious) to your audience. “A jest in
itself is a fallacy, it’s a very palatable fallacy i.e. unnoticeable to
an audience because it’s funny and they will laugh and fail to
consider the silliest of your argument; - A jest is an argument
that is likely to resemble a joke which is a calculated attempt to
amuse, by exaggerating a point until it sounds ridiculous, in the
same manner that a parody does”
One of the key ways that others try to outsmart us, is by, not
answering the question they were asked, but by answering a
similar easier question. When a question is deemed by them too
complicated to answer they answer a much simpler unrelated
question; and pose an answer. “This is the essence of intuitive
heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer
an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”
(p16, Kannemann; 2011) often listeners will mistakenly believe
the answer offered is sufficient for the question posed – however
it is rare that this is the case.
“If your opponent requires you to admit something from which
the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to
do so, in this way you deprive him of his best argument – and
prevent the audience (and hopefully the debator) from deducing
the possibility that there exists an argument that makes it sound
as if you have the potential to be wrong. “(Art-of-controversy:
Arthur Schopenhauer)
“you must take care not to allow yourself to be misled by
contradiction into exaggerating or extending a statement of your
own. It will often happen that your opponent will himself
directly try to extend your statement further than you meant it;
here you must at once stop him, and bring him back to the limits
which you set up: "That's what I said, and no more". (Art-of-
controversy: Arthur Schopenhauer)
“A pun, is to mock an argument founded on a palpable
equivocation of the middle term; and the rest, in a manner, will
be found to correspond to the respective fallacies and to be
imitations of a serious argument”.
Through meaningful conversation we are prompted to recall
past information, or to anticipate what we want to gain or avoid
in the future – we use others, and things we find in the
environment to bring to mind ideas of decisions to make, and
store memories (schemata) in objects, things, scenarios, people
around us – we tell ourselves “when I see this person I will
remember to tell them about” this gives us a chronological track
over our life, our decisions, a sense of continuity – providing us
with greater ease to make decisions and chose the path of
highest utility by being able to easily consider all the relevant
facts – to anticipate the probability about ‘what is the right thing
to do?’
The idea of Freudian transference & projection is when you
speak to a person, you are speaking to people they remind you
of, and this process can be used to have discussions with people
in your life – who might for whatever reason no longer exist in
your field of communication. It’s a safe way of discussing issues
that might be anxiety provoking if speaking with the person the
communication is meant for.
As a therapist; you are a foundation that allows a stranger to
schematically explore themselves, you can have people explore
deep interpersonal feelings about life, rather than chronological
information (which lacks huge amounts of unique perspective) –
by Learning to get to know people – but strategically – for the
purpose of having them explore their esoteric feelings rather
than just their life details – can be an extremely powerful tool in
having people feel that you know about them.
Rapport; refers to guiding horses – more specifically it means to
take a horse somewhere you must first align yourself with where
the horse is going then slowly encourage it in the direction that
you desire. You are dramatically different to other people; and if
you mention whatever it is that come into your mind; and it
doesn’t reflect what others are thinking then you will be unable
to communicate with others.
When we are with others, we must readily access the ideas that
we signal to one another. This can be quite difficult with people
that you’ve never met before, as you might not be sure exactly
what you have in common. Therefore I recommend that you use
things that are directly available for them to be understood
The rapport model that I built to solve this issue went like the
following. I learnt to talk about topics related to the environment
I’m in or things that are already primed in the minds of those I
wish to communicate and gain rapport with “This bar is nice”, “I
really like Mojitos”, “I think your dress is pretty, how would you
describe your style?” all these topics are easily comprehensible
topics within a bar, whereas on the beach there is other
acceptable conversation “The sun is beautiful today” “Hopefully
we will catch a suntan”, “I want to go into the ocean” etc.
And because I felt unable to explain myself properly to the
people who already knew me, I began practicing this model of
strangers in the street, bar staff, nightclub staff, and shopkeepers;
as I could easily check whether they were in rapport with me
and seemed to enjoy my company as a response.
It’s very flattering to be listened to; people enjoy having you
delve into the deep structure of their language; to uncover their
full (linguistical) map of the world Bandler, Richard & John
Grinder (1975a) By doing this you will find out a lot about the
person. In psychotherapy the way you achieve a detailed
understanding of someone’s inner experience; the nature in
which they see the world; is through mimicking them, speaking
in ways that they understanding i.e. by tracking their argument,
the way they speak and the nature of the themes they debate,
and then use gentle challenge – where you begin to question and
investigate in ways that cause the client to discover things about
themselves i.e. exceptions to their arguments, flaws in their
arguments that allow them to see the world in a much deeper
sense than through the impressions (normalisations) they had
learned to hold. (Noam Chomsky (1965)
The model of questioning, that we are going to teach you, isn’t
from psychotherapy; although it should be noted that NLP,
Gestalt, Freudian, Person-Centred Counselling and more each
have their own variations on how to question and challenge
someone’s beliefs in order to find more detailed content.
For example a psychotherapy client might say “No one likes me”
and you as a therapist might say “Surely there must be someone
who likes you?” This is where you’ve found an exception to
their rule, in order to find more information rather than the
gross generalisation that they’ve postulated – allowing you to
find out more information.
For example a psychotherapy client might say “My wife is
always lying to me?” you need to find out exactly what they
mean by lying so a therapist might reply “Can you tell me more
about the lying?” by using these kind of meta-questions from
neuro-linguistic programming and other therapeutic models
allows us to discover more information about what others are
saying to us, and from this we can either use the content they
reveal to us in order to build further rapport i.e. strengthen the
relationship between us, or use their information as
contradictions or exceptions to the argument they postulate.
When conversing with another, you have to let them win
occasionally, this gives them confidence in their ability to speak;
it allows them to hear their own voice, and feel part of the
interaction – Let the other win in the areas it doesn’t matter, let
them take the pieces that you don’t care for, in a game of chess
you accept that you need to lose at least some pieces, you may as
well lose the pieces worth the least value (i.e. the most of), when
your socializing the power will keep changing places, sometimes
you come off best, sometimes he comes off best – what’s of
greatest importance is that you come across respectable.
Constantly remember to pay attention to the facets of your
targets character “if you can deliver attention to your preys
character, having ones ego receive devotion is a heady
experience, if you can deliver this focus on a regular basis you
will become a much appreciated source. Your prey will be far
more grateful about being praised for their weak points than
their strengths. “A champion wrestler does not need to be told
what a good athlete he is; he will be infinitely more grateful if
you tell him he's smart, or something else he rarely hears.” (p2) if
you are going to make complements, make them sound credible
else it will sound your mocking your target.
People are very easily flattered, for every inch of leadership and
dominance you portray you must counteract this advance of
your ego by petting the ego of your competition. Remember
people are vain, and hearing about how good they look, or how
particular their intellect is, citing relevant examples from their
arguments, will show that you clearly understand the nature of
the person your speaking with, and therefore your complement
is a thought through one, and therefore appears sincere.
Conversation partners feel flattered when you agree with what
they say; but not nearly as much as when you repeat their words
back perfectly understood; the best way to achieve this is to
simply use the concept of ‘mirroring’ where you literally reflect
back the exact words they say, but to be truly good as a
counsellor, or conversationalist at parties, you need to memorize
the words the speaker uses, and add further insight into what
they said when you repeat it back, but without changing the
precise meaning that they meant when they used their original
words.
Without ambition; what is to be admired? - "Without ambition;
what is to be admired?" asked by Machiavelli Niccolo (1497)
The first class flatterer, delivers respectable flattery that is said
without blushing, good flattery leaves a ripple in the room, all
good compliments, toasts, praises, introductions, letters of
recommendation, rely on uses of honest, challenge and freshness
of insight. “Honest sounding flattery can caress a lover, cover up
a gaffe, and muffle aggression” Regier, W. (2007:8).
Our vanity requires possession of sense of possession of at least
some intellectual powers. We use flattery in order to justify our
intelligence as acceptable in a social situation, while we belittle
the intelligence of those surround us.
In order for us to successfully exert our views on the world,
requires us to push through the fluff that others through into our
path. The problem is, if you push people out of your way as you
attempt to take over their social group; they may get upset Men
when they feel threatened, they will quickly resort to using
improper arguments, stating things that are silly but look good
to an audience in order to make a joke, or fun of you. Men when
under attack, tend to speak without thinking, making them
appear quick witted, rather than absent minded.
We want to become the ultimate conversationalist, we must not
allow the interaction to come to the point when your opponent
pulls out ‘everything they have’ to kick you out of the social
group, you must focus on making everyone feel respected, the
environment being fun, but challenging. We cannot survive,
without others – this is a fundamental fact of life. We need good
services, companionship, approval, status, information and a
whole plethora of things we cannot cover individually in this
text, we depend on each other for resources, and we acquire
these through trading and exchange.
A form of dependency on you; as they don’t know how to solve
their deep search for meaning in the world – as they feel they
cannot achieve it because despite their specialisms in the fields
they’ve become successful in – they feel they are inadequately
meeting their core unique self. It always struck me how easy
people find it to explore this side to their personality with a
therapist – or a strange guy in a night club, but how difficult
they seem to find it amongst the noise of day to day living. –
Amongst all the noise – while with another person one can find a
kind of peace with themselves.
Have you ever had that feeling – where you’re truly powerful?
That your energy is solid and contained in your mental life – that
your attention is exact and precise – and instead of being at your
desk writing – your perfectly awake and in a nightclub/bar?
Maybe you have? – Well its incredible – everyone is running
around with so much noise; they can’t concentrate on anything;
not even their own thoughts; and in a half intelligent
conversation they can’t handle it – when you feel like this –
people are completely attracted to you; you seem like the coolest
person ever – so contained.
Learning to get to know people; while you’re the calm centre of
the world – giving someone your absolute full attention;
hopefully should cause them to give you their full attention in
return. But remember, don’t bid on the qualities they don’t see as
valuable – discover what will make them know they are truly
alive, and then use that – be that soul, that spirit that they are
looking for; and hold them – although only briefly else they
become accustomed to it
Everyone loves a conversationalist, especially women! In the
film limitless, the main character Eddie thinks back to his love of
a woman called Melissa; he recalls “She’d been so smart, smarter
than anyone around her, she loved to provoke people”. Later in
the film after he takes a smart drug that seems to make him talk
a great deal he comments “I seemed no longer to repel women”
the scene shows him surrounded by women, citing Shakespeare,
outsmarting financial investors about philosophy quibbles, and
dissecting the ambitions of art students, law students, rich
socialites and so forth. In the early part of the movie, he uses his
new found intelligence just to toy with people and he finds they
enjoy it, become attracted to him and so on.
On the faux website for the film limitless it states “Rather, NZT
works principally by radically increasing your brain’s ability to
absorb and process information – including those related to your
senses. Some men and women have reported that having
heightened sensory abilities – in addition to increased mental
capacity – made them both more attractive to a mate and more
capable of attracting a mate. (http://theclearpill.com/about.html)
from the film limitless (2011) by writers Leslie Dixon, Alan
Glynn.
Intellectually disassemble your competition
In order to gain the absolute attention of someone, I require a
monopoly, that I’m in that much demand at that moment where
the person is fascinated by my presence, and listening without
thinking about the next thing they are going to say, where their
friends are, are hows pretty their hair looks in case other boys
are watching them.
There are many more logical fallacies, we just illustrated the
above in order to demonstrate the wide types of fallacy that are
possible; but that many forms are fallacy are in fact a form of
straw man argument. A straw man argument is where To "attack
a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet un-
equivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it,
without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Walton, D. (1996)
The most common way that one learns to argue (using the NLP
meta model) is someone might state a belief “The British
economy isn’t going anywhere, I mean what do we export?” this
in essence is a conclusion from a series of premises or points the
person requires in order to entail this conclusion; before we can
argue with the person, it might be useful to discover how they
came to such a conclusion; so discover why they believe it.
Another option available to you is the ability to find an
exception “What do you make of this, I heard last year the UK’s
military exports are continuing to expand, and the UK issued the
second greatest number of patents last year compared to any
nation?” by pointing out an exception, then you rely on the other
person to use the best of their ability to handle the exception;
which they will likely find an extremely challenging task.
However; the best way to use contradictory information to what
the speaker has claimed, is to use the information spoke from
their very mouth earlier in the discussion. “When your opponent
states a claim, you must see if it in some way is inconsistent with
the other beliefs to which your opponent has admitted”
There are a range of dirty tactics you can use to win an argument
– the typical method is to exaggerate your opponents claim, to
take their proposition beyond its natural limits, giving its
meaning to hold as wide a significance as possible, because the
more general the statement becomes the more numerous are the
objections you can use to contradict it. On the other hand, you
must give your arguments the most specific and narrow
definition as possible to prevent your opponent from doing the
same to you.
For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim,
"Why don't you hang yourself?" Should he maintain that Berlin
is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, "Why don't you
leave by the first train?" Some such claptrap is always possible.”
Arthur Schopenhauer. (2012)
You can make someone quite ridiculous and feel utterly
defeated. This allows you to use a further tactic to confuse your
opponent; “having them consider meaningless information as if
its relevant to the case” by extending or broadening the context
of their proposition, thereby allowing the consideration of
various arguments, examples where the argument fails causes a
vast amount of information to be considered for your opponent
to continue their argument, causing them to forget their original
point and make further mistakes.
Once we catch someone’s flaws in their argument; then we do a
joke or jest with an element of surprise to make their statements
sound ridiculous (and hilarious) to your audience. “A jest in
itself is a fallacy, it’s a very palatable fallacy i.e. unnoticeable to
an audience because it’s funny and they will laugh and fail to
consider the silliest of your argument; - A jest is an argument
that is likely to resemble a joke which is a calculated attempt to
amuse, by exaggerating a point until it sounds ridiculous, in the
same manner that a parody does”
One of the key ways that others try to outsmart us, is by, not
answering the question they were asked, but by answering a
similar easier question. When a question is deemed by them too
complicated to answer they answer a much simpler unrelated
question; and pose an answer. “This is the essence of intuitive
heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer
an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”
Kahneman, D. (2011) often listeners will mistakenly believe the
answer offered is sufficient for the question posed – however it
is rare that this is the case.
“If your opponent requires you to admit something from which
the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to
do so, in this way you deprive him of his best argument – and
prevent the audience (and hopefully the debator) from deducing
the possibility that there exists an argument that makes it sound
as if you have the potential to be wrong…” you must take care
not to allow yourself to be misled by contradiction into
exaggerating or extending a statement of your own. It will often
happen that your opponent will himself directly try to extend
your statement further than you meant it; here you must at once
stop him, and bring him back to the limits which you set up:
"That's what I said, and no more". Arthur Schopenhauer. (2012)
A charmer may wait for a mistake; and then make a joke to mock
the mistake; or to exaggerate the mistake. Before we continue I
must mention that you ought to be careful questioning around a
speakers sentence structure. Without a great deal of tact and
poise you will be caught, and instead of being treated as an
intelligent opponent in a debate, you will just cause the speaker
to close off their communication preventing you from gaining
further insight into their beliefs; and you may end up causing
the speaker to show forms of aggression, resistant type
behaviour which quickly will mean you might find yourself
overwhelmed.
Individual advantage – gaining a monopoly in social interactions
requires being incredibly adaptive – you must find the normal
rituals of cohesion, use of respect, situational politeness and start
pushing the boundaries out; using the very brink of what is
allowed to progress towards bargaining for the advantages you
require to increase your power – our ego, and unique capacities
need to used constructively displaying adaptive traits to
understand, address, and offer solutions for the goals of the
group and its members; while bargaining for one’s selfish
desires.
Ok; I know what you’re thinking – you get it, you get that you
need to be impressive – right? That makes sense; but how do you
keep it; I mean the idea is to get people into the palm of our
hands and do something with it? Relations of power create
dependence – where the actors become mutually dependent on
you; this inequality in power distribution; allows the “costs that
person A can impose on person B” –these costs might just be the
level of attention you impose and the commitment you except to
focus on the ideas you present.
Remember in escalation of commitment theory – that if someone
is gradually increasing the amount of expense; the cost; the
investment they put into a project they are more inclined to
invest further than they are to quit the project entirely – even if it
looks like the project will fail.
This means; B will be unable to consider the alternative
opportunities available to him or her simply because their
opportunity cost considering the level of investment in this
relationship makes it impossible to leave – not only that but our
aim as a Charming Gentlemen is to deliver actual value; to be
beneficial to others but while doing so imposing a high cost;
through this we gain our advantages – friendship, political
support, etc. Linda, M (1981)
One of the advantages in gaining control of resources that B has
access to; is that you may be able to gain hold of their external
values in addition to the values that they hold internally; for
example you may be able to gain access to their friendship
groups, perhaps their Facebook social networks for the purpose
of advertisement of your products; and other things such as
being able to target and identify their resourceful friends and
then re-focus your attack onto those and their networks.
Interactions go through different stages of monopoly; sometimes
you might be an extremely intelligent developed individual in
one particular specialism of conversation or interaction, but
completely lacking in another field, so the interaction will swing
between one holding the power, then to the other person
holding the power; where each person in the exchange is gaining
some form of benefit through the exchange.
Our life choices are adaptive, they can be changed. It is for this
reason that psychotherapists & counsellors exist. We build the
world around ourselves using the opportunities we have, to
spontaneously cue and trigger the thoughts & attitudes and
lifestyle we create.
Through meaningful conversation we are prompted to recall
past information, or to anticipate what we want to gain or avoid
in the future – we use others, and things we find in the
environment to bring to mind ideas of decisions to make, and
store memories (schemata) in objects, things, scenarios, people
around us – we tell ourselves “when I see this person I will
remember to tell them about” this gives us a chronological track
over our life, our decisions, a sense of continuity – providing us
with greater ease to make decisions and chose the path of
highest utility by being able to easily consider all the relevant
facts – to anticipate the probability about ‘what is the right thing
to do?’
"God has planted in a man a sense of ambition, and a satisfaction
arising from the contemplation of his excelling his fellows in
something deemed valuable amongst them. It is this passion that
drives men to all the ways we see in use of signalizing
themselves, and that tends to make whatever excites in a man
the idea of this distinction so very pleasant." Edmund Burke
(1757:68)
Once the person discovers that the world is much more detailed
and amazing than their original summaries that they held before
they entered therapy “I’m unlucky”, “No one likes me”, “I’m
afraid he will come to get me”. Then they can realize their own
core personality, sense of self, or goals underneath, the poorly-
written-map-of-the-world that they had – and see their unique
advantages for what they really are in light of the genuine
opportunities they are faced with – and in this sense, the
personality can become integrated once more by noticing its own
complexity, without over-generalisation, and meaningless
summary of unrelated life events, attitudes, and belief about
them.
Social Exchange
In economics, when two people are exchanging goods it’s called
– Comparative Advantage – that people specialize in a particular
type of talent, in order to exchange value with others. In order to
demonstrate this; suppose everyone in the world was equally as
good as each other at everything – then why would you need a
mechanic to fix your car, a builder to build your house etc.
We build our relationships in order to make more than we spend
- i.e. to become better people; funnier, more pretty, more
intelligent and all the niche of qualities associated in those
categories.
If your offering represents enough value beyond the costs that it
costs the other participant to interact with you – then the
interaction will continue, and perhaps escalate further – but if
not the relationship will quickly end or never begin in the first
place – as relationships are the pursuit of joint benefit.
In order to gain the absolute attention of someone, I require a
monopoly, that I’m in demand at that moment, the person is
fascinated by my presence, and listening, without thinking about
the next thing they are going to say, where their friends are, are
how pretty their hair looks in case other boys are watching them.
In philosophic debate there are various forms of logical fallacy;
to list a few
Ad Hominem – This is where you attack the person rather than
their argument “Well, you’re a dishonest person so nothing you
say is true”, “Look at the way your dressed, I can’t take you
seriously”, “Scott is a Jerk” is not a fallacy by itself but the reason
one might mention “Scott is a jerk” is to discredit Scott’s
argument, therefore the argument really is “Scott is a jerk,
therefore he is wrong”.
Ad Ignorantiam – This is an argument that states a belief is true
because you cannot prove that it’s not true. For example one
might say “That because we can’t ever prove God doesn’t exist,
that therefore its likely he does”
Argument from final consequences – this is a reversal of cause of
effect; thereby claiming the result is because of the cause, for
example; the universe contains beings who are intelligent, these
were caused by a specific setup of the universe, therefore human
beings were designed by someone intelligent. Whereas it might
just be that we happen to exist, why it has to be that it was
planned.
For example, you might say to yourself while at the casino “If
red 17 turns up, I’ll have enough money to go on holiday” and
then you go on holiday and say “I wouldn’t be here if red 17
didn’t turn up” this is simply untrue, you have no way of
knowing that you wouldn’t have ended up on holiday if red 17
hadn’t turned up.
Argument from personal incredulity - if something seems
complicated, then it’s deemed to be too complex, confusing and
therefore wrong; but there are numerous examples where this
isn’t the case. People often believe what’s obvious or simple is
likely to be true “The simplest solution is often the right one”
Occam’s razor; however this just isn’t always true as one thing
may be obvious to one person but not at all obvious to another.
Begging the question – this is where people wrongly assume, or
are biased to induce an answer from the premises in the question
alone; for example “Why is he so good at roulette?” response
“well, he knows what he’s doing” here the question has been
assumed from the information offered in the question alone – no
additional premises have been added before the conclusion.
Confusing Association with Causation – “his fallacy is often
used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation, For
example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal
drug use have been on the rise, it would be a fallacy to conclude
that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use.”
However in reality it’s just a mere coincidence that both
variables increase at the same time. (Borrowed from the The
Sceptics Guide (2012)
Being Respectful
‘I don’t sit down at my desk and think “let’s shock people!” but I
might sit down at my desk and think ‘let’s move some
boundaries’ - Walter Van Beirendonck
People are very easily flattered, for every inch of leadership and
dominance you portray you must counteract this advance of
your ego by petting the ego of your competition. Remember
people are vain, and hearing about how good they look, or how
particular their intellect is, citing relevant examples from their
arguments, will show that you clearly understand the nature of
the person your speaking with, and therefore your complement
is a thought through one, and therefore appears sincere.
Good flattery; makes people feel special. It requires that we are
honest, providing feedback, challenges, compliments etc. But
you wouldn’t accept a compliment from someone who doesn’t
know you, it must sound deserved.
Before you can debate with someone – you have to be their best
friend. You need to be able to listen to their argument – ‘in their
shoes’ by doing this you will find the chinks in their armour
while giving them the attention they required to feel flattered.
Rapport; refers to guiding horses – more specifically it means to
take a horse somewhere you must first align yourself with where
the horse is going then slowly encourage it in the direction that
you desire.
You can use the content of what details people tell you in order
to build rapport; however - If you sound like your purposely
playing a game of either complimenting (paying attention to the
ego) of your target or outsmarting (dominating) your target then
you will appear calculated, and be judged to be insincere.
There’s various areas that you can complement someone on;
their intelligence, their looks, their character ‘you’re a good
person’, their age ‘you look a lot younger’ – ‘your wise for your
age’, how insightful they are ‘your ideas inspire me’, how
charming they are ‘you’re like a charming English gent’. By
using the tools of flattery you can counteract the balance, or
weight in the conversation when your opponents ego looks as if
it’s about to feel hurt.
I spent a great deal of my teenage and young adult life, thinking,
obsessively that I could master some kind of philosophical
system that governs all things; I was not successful, in my older
age I don’t spend much time thinking at all. I mention this only
because; something strange happened when I spent all my time
thinking, when it came to having a conversation with other
people, they would have no idea what I was speaking about;
because they might mention birds, and I would explain ten
different things I’ve spent the last few years thinking about in
relation to birds, and the person who mentioned the birds would
have their schema totally violated to the extent they simply
didn’t have a clue what I was saying, and they would laugh.
That the way I governed myself in life in respect to the thoughts
I had, in contrast to the reality of the discussion seemed at
conflict; causing myself to receive ridicule from my peers. The
phenomena that generates ridiculousness is discussed in detail
by some researchers into comedy; Francesco Mele states “In day-
to-day life it can happen that someone makes people laugh
because he/she becomes ridiculous, but without any intention of
doing so.
We refer to this ridicule situation as “real ridicule”. Cousuns and
Shoham (1994) “the person is doubly inadequate: inadequate in
being or in doing, and inadequate in presuming and expecting.
There is contrast between that which was expected and foreseen
(surprise, unexpected) and that which actually happens.”
Francesco Mele. (2002)
During my study at university to become a therapist; we had to
deliver therapy sessions, receive therapy sessions, and have
group therapy. During group therapy you are expected to share
yourself. And I would constantly hear the room laughing at
everything I say, when I wasn’t trying to be funny, I was
purposely making an effort ‘to explore myself’ in order to
further understand myself, develop self-awareness and become
a better therapist for the process.
However, I had already had this problem of finding myself
incomprehensible for a number of years earlier; so I made an
effort to think less often and instead approach life with a little
more ‘what you see is what you get’ attitude to ensure that I
shared similar schema’s to those I wish to communicate with. I
mention this because I see it as a helpful example for those of
you reading this who feel they can’t be understood by others
and maybe feel like they are currently experiencing a similar
problem to what I used to have.
For a number of years I’ve run courses and workshops teaching
guys how to speak to girls; nearly all the guys coming to the
workshops were from a highly technical specialist profession;
and when it came to speaking to guys they didn’t know what to
say. I believe this is similar to the experience I had for a number
of years; the problem when you don’t think like others is that no
one else has any idea how to communicate with you, and you
may feel the difficulty in communicating with them.
Here is a model for what was occurring;
 The other therapists listening to me bring up a topic
area.
 The other therapists have a plan for where they expect
the conversation to flow (i.e. defined within the
associations of the schema)
 I’m asked for my opinion on the topic (activates new
schema, and conflicts or violates the expected structure
of the conversational as defined within the schema
associations).
 At this point the plan (expected) did not take place.
 A forced reinterpretation occurs of the original schema
as they are merged.
 As a response everyone laughs.
I found this a genuine issue when trying to communicate with
people; I didn’t enjoy this because often it meant that I was
misunderstood, not listened to and sometimes lonely as a result;
As a result I tried to learn to speak in a way that built rapport –
that let others easily engage and understand me, rather than feel
like everything I said was a surprise.
Through having my various problems in my life; likely caused
by my dyslexia; its given me the good fortune of allowing me to
think about how to fix social mistakes; that I make, and I see
others around me make when trying to communicate with
others. In short; it allowed me to learn how to build rapport with
strangers as a linguistical format, and when I choose to also have
the ability to be funny and tell jokes.
The rapport model that I built to solve this issue went like the
following. I learnt to talk about topics related to the environment
I’m in or things that are already primed in the minds of those I
wish to communicate and gain rapport with “This bar is nice”, “I
really like Mojitos”, “I think your dress is pretty, how would you
describe your style?” all these topics are easily comprehensible
topics within a bar, whereas on the beach there is other
acceptable conversation “The sun is beautiful today” “Hopefully
we will catch a suntan”, “I want to go into the ocean” etc.
And because I felt unable to explain myself properly to the
people who already knew me, I began practicing this model of
strangers in the street, bar staff, nightclub staff, and shopkeepers;
as I could easily check whether they were in rapport with me
and seemed to enjoy my company as a response.
Being in rapport is easier - it reduces life costs; and creates depth
of understanding and thus identifies new opportunities - “Much
psycholinguistic research suggests that words that are
predictable in a sentence context are perceived and processed
more rapidly and accurately than the same words when they
occur out of context or in incongruent contexts." Kara D.
Federmeier (1999:2)
That it’s a great deal easier to understand and express yourself
when you’re in rapport with your peer. “Message clarity was
positively related to perceived source competence, which in turn
was positively related to perceived source trustworthiness.
Finally, perceived source trustworthiness was positively related
to attitude towards the source”
This is the structure of a rapport building schema-eliciting
interaction;
 Greeting from communicator
 Stranger waits for the expected associative following
events from greeting.
 Stranger believes that already primed topic X will follow
greeting from communicator.
 Communicator brings up already primed topic X
 Stranger mentions association within topic X I.e. X2
 Communicator mentions X2 and then mentions already
near-primed association X5
That is to say, in order to communicate well with someone it’s
important to know roughly what you can easily explain to them,
with some kind of clarity, based on what they already know
(what schema’s are currently activated and therefore accessible)
it should be pointed out that when a schema isn’t activated, or
seems completely unrelated to the scenario one finds themselves
within that schema may as well not exist; it is completely
inaccessible and therefore forgotten or deleted until its recovered
another time.
I shall demonstrate the example of making someone’s hand
stuck to the table as a hypnosis routine; when I show someone
that they should “press your hand on the table” and I instruct
them “you can move your hand like this and this” I shake my
hand against the table as if there is great pressure and all I can
do is shake my hand, I want the participant to mentally rehearse
that shaking movement, to activate that schema.
I then tell that “That hand is stuck isn’t it?” which is a question I
want the participant to ask themselves and receive the answer
from their primed associations that “Yes, despite my attempts to
recall how to lift my hand (activating the schema to relax and
move my arm up) the only primed schema’s activated are all
associated with the hand shaking, or feeling pressure with the
table… therefore my hand feels stuck.. I can’t lift it”.
How to make them Laugh
By making people laugh; we keep the energy fun. It’s a way of
signalling value i.e. innovation of ideas, because when you tell a
joke you are literally altering the way people see things. Using
humour to enter social groups is a way of being low key – it
communicates that your unique that your innovative; but
because it creates positive emotion you are not easily assumed to
be a threat – you make people enjoy being around you. It
impresses those around you makes you appear attractive.
However that’s not to say that you won’t be judged to be
competition; the amount of funny people I know who have tried
to join social groups I’ve been a member of; who have instantly
being rejected with people stating such things as “He talks to
much”, “She thinks she’s so funny”, “he’s always telling stupid
jokes”.
If people don’t listen to you, then you can’t get people to focus
on the ideas you present. Rapport is as important as humour,
and humour is as important as challenging and debating with
people – you need the skills to exert yourself on a range of levels
as to out-ego your competition while having fun.
A great way of intellectually outsmarting someone, involves
using humour and after we cover humour in this section we will
cover ways to combine logical argument with wit, smugness,
and one-upmanship.
The complexities of language; of the mind and so forth can easily
be noticed when it comes to analysing the construction of
humour. Jokes are as interesting, if not more interesting than the
nature of hypnosis when it comes to causing a response in
people from communicating ideas to them.
We began the book with the “What colour is a cloud, what
colour is the moon, what do cows drink?” With the common
response being “Milk” which of course is incorrect. In this
example; because you’ve been primed to think of White things,
then you’re likely to begin to answer the question “what do cows
drink?” as a question of colour, so you look for the colour of
white in relationship to cows and drinks, and you come to the
solution of Milk; which if this inconsistency between ideas
namely – milk and water – is realized will result in the subject
laughing.
That is to say; jokes often have a punch line, they begin with
building an idea in your head, and the punch line quickly causes
you to realize you misinterpreted the set-up, in light of the
punch line, which causes you to reinterpret the meaning of the
speech; resulting in laughter – this feeling of energy, challenge,
innovation as our ideas change, our neurons match in a
combination never met before; gives us a thrust of energy, and
this shows through our communication as laughter.
Our aim is to turn communicational structures into neat
algebraic formulas that we can use to influence our social
surroundings. – how people convey ideas; and when an idea is
accepted and given focus by a stranger; how ideas are ranked in
environments, and which ideas are given priority.
If we want to be able to build lasting impacts; on the psychology
of others; then jokes are a good area of research to investigate, as;
Jokes tend to be a form of expressing ideas with others, getting
people to challenge the way they think about things,
communicating status in a group, and reliving group tension.
To continue, consider the following; the false statement that
“Elvis Presley’s parents wanted him to be a dentist” is mildly
funny because the discrepancy between the images of Presley
and a dentist is detected automatically. (Kahneman; 2011)
Humour is a great example of how we are constantly stimulated
by the world; that causes us to bring ideas to the mind
automatically. And when ideas are brought to the mind; they
can easily be combined with other ideas that have never been
considered before – and this can cause us to be entertained or
challenged.
Jokes tell us something very important about our neurology “To
produce humour, an individual needs to mentally process
information coming from the environment or from memory,
playing with ideas, words, or actions in a creative way, and
thereby generating a witty verbal utterance or a comical
nonverbal action that is perceived by others to be funny. In the
reception of the humour we take in information (something
someone says or does, or something we read) through our eyes
and ears, process the meaning of this information and appraise it
as non-serious, playful and humorous.” P6 (The psychology of
humour: an integrative approach by Rod A. Martin)
What are the characteristics of a stimulus that cause us to
perceive it as funny? In order to discover this we could take the
example of the above joke, and use this formula to generate
sentences similar in structure.
 “Today is such a beautiful day, (pause) everyone looks
so sexy… I love it.”
 “The house is huge, I feel like, I AM the king of the
world.”
 This artistic centre is totally awesome, we are like REAL
artists!
These jokes (not that they are particularly amazing) I just
generated on the fly just now; what is comedy has been under
debate for centuries; but “most investigators would agree,
however that humor involves an idea, image, text, or event that
is in some sense incongruous, odd, unusual, unexpected,
surprising or out of the ordinary.” P6 (The psychology of humor:
an integrative approach by Rod A. Martin)
Most of the jokes that I have just created above; take a scenario
that’s easy for people to connect with – because in the above
examples I’ve listed traits about the surrounding environment –
and therefore is already readily available to the individual –
ensuring the set-up of the joke is easily understood. And then
I’ve exaggerated the set up beyond its normal boundaries “I.e.
just because I’m in an artistic centre doesn’t make me an artist,
and what is a real artist?”
It’s a silly exaggeration and “Just because I’m in a huge house,
doesn’t make me king of the world” such jokes cause people to
bring to mind all the ideas about kings of the world, or artists
painting pictures and conceive in a scenario where ‘me’ or ‘us’
are those characters together.
Arthur Koestler in 1964 said that humour is when; an situation
or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspective of two
self-consistent but normally unrelated frames of reference.He
continues “ A simple example of this is a pun, in which two
different meanings of a word or phrase are brought together
(primed associatively) i.e. two cannibals are eating a clown. One
says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you”. According to
Koestler this same process underlies all types of humour. P7
(The psychology of humour: an integrative approach by Rod A.
Martin)
The synergy (innovation) or synergy as two contradictory
conceptions of the same subject are held in ones mind at the
same time, causes an enjoyable and emotionally arousing
experience, causing the pleasurable sensation of having ones
thoughts oscilate back and forth between two incompatible
interpretations of a concept. (Michael Apter 1982)
When a joke has been told before; it loses its value because the
neurons (according to connectome theory) would be already
connected, therefore the pattern is already established and it no
longer requires additional energy to be arranged in order for the
combination of ideas to be integrated being as there is no new
connection formed, there will be no laughter response.
What insights does this give us into our minds? Cognitive
psychologists have conducted a great deal of research on the
way knowledge and experiences are represented and stored in
our minds. Knowledge structures are referred to in psychology
as schemas. And when a knowledge structure is activated by
some stimuli, it is said to be primed.
A schema is a dynamic mental representation that enables of us
to build mental models of the world. “They are formed on the
basis of past experience with objects, scenes, and consist of a set
of (usually unconscious) expectations about what things look
like and/or the order in which they occur” (p. 263 The
Psychology of Humor: An Intergrative approach – Rod A.
Martin)
“Schemas describe the general characteristics of an object or
event and contain variables or slots that can assume different
values in particular instances. For example, a schema for birds
would include variables such as the type of wings, feet, beaks,
tails and bodies, which may be instantiated in a number of ways
in individual birds. Many different kinds of birds all fit the
general schema.”
“When we catch a glimpse of a bird, or hear about a bird in a
story, the schema for birds is activated, and , unless we are given
information to the contrary, we expect this particular bird to
conform to the default values.” (p86 The Psychology of Humor:
An Intergrative approach – Rod A. Martin)
Here are some examples of jokes that are puns;
 Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead to know basis
 A pessimist's blood type is b-negative
 I used to work in a blanket factory, but it folded
 Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
(Jokes from
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/puns.html: Date
accessed – 04/01/2012)
The punch lines of the above jokes, introduce elements that don’t
fit with the original scenario described in the setup. The
punchline is not compatible with the schemas activated from the
original set up. The punch line causes the listener to backtrack;
in order to understand the setup in the new perspective of the
punch line.
Jokes tend to rely on subjects in popular interest; for example a
political character, racial and gender stereotypes etc. The reason
why jokes use these scenarios like the differences between men
and women, or the cultural differences between an Irishman,
and Englishman and a Scotsman’s is because the stereotypes
provide the setup of the joke to be more easily brought to mind,
and therefore make the punch line stronger because you have a
clearer image in your mind of what’s being described.
Using stereotypes allows jokes to become shorter; and therefore
more easily told and require less concentration in order to be
heard and understood in listeners. The aim of anyone working
in communication should be to tell the most detailed idea in the
shortest possible way; that way you have more control over
what precisely you’re influencing in people, and will be able to
influence more people with less effort on both your part in the
telling, and their part in being a captive audience.
How to argue using logic
This section of the book serves a variety of goals; we want to
cover how to charm, flatter, gain rapport, tell jokes, and insult
people. Therefore this section of the book aims to serve the goals
of demonstrating you have a monopoly over social realms that
others simply cannot compete with.
As covered earlier in the book; we bargain with other persons
we meet for economic value – that is to say relationships are
formed strategically; where we attempt to form the most
valuable relationship that we are allowed to join considering our
unique talents are interviewed when attempting to acquire
group membership.
It’s important we learn to show our intelligence, to let it shine;
but unfortunately this means stepping on others shoe’s; if the
person you’re debating with feels as if the exchange isn’t
benefiting them i.e. they are achieving no value from your
participation within the social group, then they will likely vote
for you to be quitted from the group. You being there, talking
with complete strangers has to simultaneously benefit the person
you’re speaking with and the interests of the wider social group.
But equally you being there, being clearly challenging, different,
and respectful if done well, will be totally charming, and the
group may feel honoured to have won over the presence of such
an interesting, intelligent man of the world.
Many of us doubt that we actually have strong opinions; we are
so used to following other peoples rules – that we forget what
makes us unique – all of us have a philosopher under our skin.
We are each the owner of radical views – that are the result of
our unique set of experiences; they are valuable and should be
shared.
If we struggle to recognize our own views about life; then start
investigating the differences between yourself and others – do
this by getting to know others – question what they mean when
they make statements.
When someone speaks they constantly inadvertently make
postulations. All postulations are made for the purpose of logic,
except unless in the case of humour – where someone might say
something purely for the intent of making people laugh, or
perhaps one may purposely say illogical things as to entertain
the views of others in a social group, to fit in, or purely just to
allow discussion into other more important matters.
All logical arguments postulate. They state such things, and
assert whether they are true or false. For example consider the
following views; "Ankara is the capital of Turkey.", "Humans are
the only animals to use language.", "Christopher Columbus was
the first European to sail to the New
World."(http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm)
By finding the borders of our experience; the differences in
views between ourselves and others - gives us psychological
power. It gives our ego a voice.
Breaking boundaries – exploring the thoughts we haven’t
thought about in years, developing a strong argument – is is
where the power lies. The more you learn what you think about
yourself, and about others the more charismatic you’ll become.
Directly exploring and challenging others is important to human
innovation, to creativity, and gives light to our identity – it
makes us feel as if our life means something. That’s why a joke is
funny, or having a new experience like riding a roller coaster or
jumping out of a plane is exhilarating – because it’s a challenge.
By stating an initial opinion; or investigating the opinions of
your competition – you are coaxing the target to say more
information – this can be seen as throwing out the bait. Maybe
you ask a question “What do you think about?” or “Do you
think that A or B is more important?”
I know when we are speaking to others we don’t aim to be
logically correct; as according to philosophy. But I can give you a
reason why its useful to aim to know what position your arguing
from – it gives you confidence. If you know why you believe
what you believe and the counter arguments to it, then when
you meet people – you aren’t scared to voice your opinions
because you know regardless of what your opposition says, you
can hold your own.
Stop there – we have a problem! People don’t care about how
‘right’ you are. You might be perfectly correct about a topic in
every sense, and seem knowledgeable to your audience but if
you are boring, or insulting (by the sense you seem smarter than
their social group) they will want you out.
Therefore, we can’t appear smart purely for the sake of being
logically correct; when you’re trying to be smart – voicing your
thoughts, the subtext of your communication is that your
thoughts are more valuable, and that you deserve respect and a
leadership position within the social group.
In order to make this leadership attempt actually appeal to the
audience, we can’t focus only on the truthfulness of our
argument, we’ve got to win people over; i.e. we’ve got to be
funny, intelligent, understanding, flattering, respecting,
respectful, charming, courageous, challenging, innovative.
Before we make an opinion, lets first get the audience on our
side; assess who are competition is, gently start mentioning
viewpoints and see what happens when it comes to opposition.
The use of intellect shouldn’t be for the sake of truth, because
truth while socializing isn’t the priority, social dominance is; the
best strategy is to listen to your audience, ask questions, and let
them make their own mistakes. The nature of a charmer is to be
charismatic while challenging.
In Philosophy, there is a topic called Logical Fallacies; these are
simple rules that if broken means someone’s argument isn’t
logically sound. They can only defer whether the persons logic
in the argument to come to their final conclusion is logical or
illogical, but cannot by themselves determine truth. You must
use a great deal of tact and pose when using the logical fallacies
to pick apart someone’s arguments – because if the opponent
believes you are attempting to defeat them, they might simply
resort to aggression or other such villainy in order to refuse your
access to the position of leadership.
Furthermore If you point out to the audience the philosophical
mistakes of their debate the audience will disapprove of your
behaviour; because they won’t understand what you mean, and
instead will make assumptions as to why you’re doing the
activity i.e. to mock people, and therefore out of their own
personal fear of becoming mocked they will attempt to through
you out of their social circle as a form of protective mechanism.
There are many more logical fallacies, we just illustrated the
above in order to demonstrate the wide types of fallacy that are
possible; but that many forms are fallacy are in fact a form of
straw man argument. A straw man argument is where To "attack
a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet un-
equivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it,
without ever having actually refuted the original position [wiki:
straw man argument ]
The most common way that one learns to argue (using the NLP
meta model) is someone might state a belief “The British
economy isn’t going anywhere, I mean what do we export?” this
in essence is a conclusion from a series of premises or points the
person requires in order to entail this conclusion; before we can
argue with the person, it might be useful to discover how they
came to such a conclusion; so discover why they believe it.
Another option available to you is the ability to find an
exception “What do you make of this, I heard last year the UK’s
military exports are continuing to expand, and the UK issued the
second greatest number of patents last year compared to any
nation?” by pointing out an exception, then you rely on the other
person to use the best of their ability to handle the exception;
which they will likely find an extremely challenging task.
Thoughts about competition
When we interact with others – it’s important we understand the
thoughts of the person we are dealing with. This section of the
book is dedicated to the part of others that thinks about the
scenario, the interaction, goals, costs, the most efficient route,
and forms impressions about themselves.
We rarely get to share and reflect on our views about the world
with others – so when we do it is a rewarding experience. Our
sense of self is reflected upon in our conscious system – our
reflective self. The part of us that has a working memory, to
consider various points of interest, to bring processes that are
occurring within the surroundings of our awareness and bring
them to focus, “The term ‘reflection’ is taken from the British
philosopher, John Locke, who suggested that our knowledge
originates from two sources, experience and reflection.
That is to say; reflection is the active thinking, comparing, and
judging of the functions of the mind – it’s our ability to plan,
create images, organise, elaborate, and rehearse.
In other words it is active thinking, rather than passive; for
example around me right now is a wide range of stimulus,
without a doubt those stimulus are activating mental schemas,
or the case of me writing my book (noise) somewhere in my
mind; priming schema’s to mind and such like.
However, my ability to look at these passive activations, and
consider them, compare them, debate them in an active way is
my sense of consciousness – my ability to reflect upon the world.
This reflection provides a record, an interpretation and
commentary of sensory events.
It allows me to cronologue the internally generated fantasies in
my visual system in my brain, my ability to dream of images
even while writing this sentence; and attempt to control which
primed network of associations I give priority, (attention).
[p86
http://memlab0.eng.yale.edu/PDFs/1983_Johnson_MEM.pdf]
According to connectome theory; when a piano key is played
through a speaker, and a very proficient piano player is sitting at
a piano, they will have a desire to play the sequence of notes
following the initial note played through the speaker. That the
sound that was played, triggered a variety of associations in
their brain, that are all wired together, most notably in this case
is that the original input sound of the note, triggers the next note
to be played which is connected by electrical impulse from
neuron to neuron. That our neurons rewire to make these
patterns in the brain as we learn and grow and react to patterns
in the world.
The patterns in the world and in the brain, and inputted in
sensory channels Acoustic, Visual, Kinaesthetic, etc. stored in the
connect-o-some and triggered when an electrical impulse enters
that field of information – in the connect-o-some; when then
causes either (in this case) the sound to be played in the minds-
ear (the part of the mind that can play sounds to itself) i.e. the
song will be played in the mind automatically after hearing the
initial note, or it might be the muscular memory i.e. the neurons
connected to the impression of the sound in the connectome will
automatically send a signal for the fingers to press down on the
appropriate notes on the piano and this may occur without the
impression of having any choice other than to play the note i.e. it
happened without ‘free will’. [wiki: connectome]
The activity in our brains is vastly more complex than the feeling
we usually have of being a mind. I remember when I was young,
and I stumbled across psychology; truthfully I didn’t realize that
my mind was so detailed, that I was more than my thoughts
about myself.
As an author, I don’t know what you know about your mind;
what it feels like for you to interact with yourself. But I know for
me, because I’m aware of the process that thoughts grow and
fall, I don’t really expect to be in control of my thoughts, I guess
my mind feels like waves of feelings; thoughts about those
feelings all caused by some external trigger that reminded me of
something – and this process of thoughts coming about; well
doesn’t feel completely outside my awareness – of course it is, I
can never understand the complex nature of my thoughts, but at
least my knowledge of having little control, gives me some
control.
People have a very limited capacity to hold information in their
mind (working memory) at any given time; you might find
yourself having to focus on one task a time in order to complete
it, or you may find yourself struggling to drive safely at 100
miles per hour down the motorway when you have music
playing loud, because you find it difficult to concentrate on the
two stimulus at once.
The founder of psychology, William James; believed that we
“can only focus on one thing at a time” although he continued to
state that if this one thing “was a collection of things defined
within the whole” then of course we could focus on that – this
collection of thoughts in a whole about a given topic later
became known as a schema.
What is a thought? A definition we are going to propose (thus
far) is a thought is a cue or prompt to trigger unconscious
activity to occur – a thought is the part of us, that reminds
ourselves of a memory we have; that recalls, fetches and
compares (judges) summarized information about the networks
of loosely related data within a schemata; sometimes comparing
it with another schemata.
In order to achieve this; judging and comparing of the whole or
parts of a schemata; or planning for future events; our conscious
part must have at least a small capacity to store information for a
time, a neural network that can hold data temporally before
being cleared for new data or at least the ability to give attention
to component parts of the parts of the mind involved in the data
considered, and actively issue the networks to receive electrical
impulse for at least a short period of time to allow judging,
comparison etc.
Its widely shown that we have different ways of representation
information; that being as we have evolutionary developed in
order to live in a sensory world of, 3 dimensional moving
pictures, a range of important sounds in terms of pitch, volume,
location, and feelings, smells etc. then the brain has developed
mechanisms for processing those kind of information, and
recalling those kind of information – probably in almost identical
quality. To speak plainly there is a part of your brain that sees
movies you see with your eyes, and movies that you see with
your ability to recall pictures, and moving 3 dimensional
imagery.
This allows us the opportunity to represent thoughts to
ourselves; simply by “Thinking” consciously, we can activate the
pathways to a schemata and then find the visual parts of the
schema and then see those and the related triggers automatically
activated in our internal cinema – where we watch these movies;
we are fortunate that we have this ability; and we can use this
function as well as the others as part of the planning,
comparison, organising, judging, summarizing sequence. Like
we covered earlier we can also play songs, sounds, and the
sound of our voice as we simulate speaking to ourselves – but
only inside our mind in order to act a dialogue – a narration of
the organising of thought – to act as constant reminder what’s
just happened, and what to do next when we are performing
complex cognitive tasks i.e. an algebra equation.
To point out once more; just because you have associations
triggered in the back of your brain; does not mean we are
conscious of them, but if we give attention to an association, then
we can have a thought about that association being present. For
example you might see a dog but not think about the dog, when
you think “I can a dog” either by giving the dog attention or
actually saying those words in your internal dialogue then you
are having a thought about having a thought – as we covered its
only when the working memory sends electrical impulse to the
relevant parts to consider, and compare is these functions
possible; but mental life happily continues without these
functions most of the time. (See cold executive control)
Tasks such as ‘playing a game of chess’, ‘having an intellectual
debate’, ‘writing a thesis’ – involve organising, altering,
comparing, contrasting and scheduling of networks of
associations – are the tasks associated with active thinking.
As mentioned; a common way people use their minds is in
planning and scheduling future cognitive work – a scheduling
procedure – for example; system 1 might say “When task A
completes, consider X representation” then working memory 2
might say“attention paid on X representation” which issues a
recall to system 2 “Call primed related value (from associative
memory)” then working memory “Merge/Compare X
representation with New Primed Recall” which then can be a
restored.
In this way, cognitive processes can be viewed as a sequence of
stable states – different activation patterns in the mind
depending on what the cognitive task at the time is given focus.
This way of viewing the processing between STM and LTM is
classic since the original research hypothesis from Atkinson and
Shiffrin (1968); and still remains a central feature of all major
theories of information processing. [p1 Ericsson, Anders K.;
Kintsch, W. (1995)
Reflection processes intergrate and organise (e.g. Mandler, 1967;
Tulving 1968) by creating or reactivating relationships between
one event and another (e.g. between target items and other
information, such as other targets, elements of the experimental
context, or episodic events from the subjects life. Johnson, M.K.
(1983:86) by reflecting on old and new information we can draw
inferences.
Data ends up being processed and organised into such
perceptual categories is likely learned from experience; “the
perceptual record is important for the storage of complex
patterns and producing a sense of familiarity, that is, the sense of
having seen something before. Perceptual entities create and are
in turn guided by schemas or mental structures. Johnson, M.K.
(1983)
Let me show you an example of how difficult it is to use your
conscious working memory for more than one item at a time,
Consider the below mathematical problem.
17 × 24
On this task, Daniel Kahneman states; “You first retrieved from
memory the cognitive program for multiplication that you
learned in school, then you implemented it. Carrying out the
computation was a strain. You felt the burden of holding much
material in memory, as you needed to keep track of where you
were and of where you were going, while holding on to the
intermediate result. The process was mental work: deliberate,
effortful, and orderly—a prototype of slow thinking. The
computation was not only an event in your mind; your body
was also involved. Your muscles tensed up, your blood pressure
rose, and your heart rate increased. Someone looking closely at
your eyes while you tackled this problem would have seen your
pupils dilate. Your pupils contracted back to normal size as soon
as you ended your work— when you found the answer (which
is 408, by the way) or when you gave up.” (P22 Daniel
Kahneman ‘thinking fast and slow)
There are various things that occurred when you tried to solve
the math problem, you may have first began with a recall of
associations, that allow you to make an unconscious guess as to
what the highest estimate of the answer could be, and perhaps
estimate a lower potential answer. Then you probably decided
whether it’s worth trying to solve it using your working
memory. (Considering the substantial effort it will take, and
whether you can afford to expend that effort). At this point you
begin holding (numerical digits) information in short-term
memory, while manipulating the other digits and then holding
their answer also in working memory. And having some process
in memory rehearsed so that you can recall the process you can
to the answer, to thereby check whether your work was a logical
process and thus whether your answer is correct. And then you
will have your conscious conclusion whether your answer met
that rule and therefore conclude “Yes that answer is correct”.
When I was young, I saw psychology in the same way I am
coming to rediscover psychology despite having years of
experience in the meantime; working to promote the dramatic
expression and performance of the art of hypnosis.
I did this thing, where I would walk into a club, and I would
make a big movement, for example wave to someone on the
other side of the room, and then check to see who caught me
waving, and then assess what it is that the person then decided
about me when they saw me. For example; a girl who might be
looking to go into the nightclub in order to meet a guy; that
might be the reason she is looking; so I would memorize that
information and come back to her later to check.
Attention isn’t controlled by either system; you are naturally
affected to move towards change in the environment, your
automatically look at a bright light, or search for the source of a
loud noise. If someone said your name at a party suddenly you
turn to see where the speaker might be – your attention goes are
directed towards the areas of change; then something else takes
your focus and your move your attention onto that source, and
the old focus is forgotten. A lot of mental life is just the move
between one focus to another with little thought actually taking
place about it.
Your attention is consumed by interesting things a process of
looking out for good opportunities and avoiding threats – these
cause you remember previous scenarios, to anticipate and plan
your reaction; then you might make thoughts about these
associations, and then perhaps recall further associations to
contrast with, combine with, etc. we look to understand things
that we see in the categories we already have, and we see a rush
of energy when we see these rules broken i.e. see a surprising
thing.
When something surprising happens, we have a choice; to feel
scared, or to feel motivated; if your speaking to someone and
they don’t seem impressed by your presence, it’s probably
because your offering nothing challenging, interesting or
unusual; your being plain – people are addicted to change.
When we are focused on a certain set of information; we do not
have access to recall other information. ``It is a well-known
phenomenon that we do not notice anything happening in our
surroundings while being absorbed in the inspection of
something; focusing our attention on a certain object may
happen to such an extent that we cannot perceive other objects
placed in the peripheral parts of our visual field, although the
light rays they emit arrive completely at the visual sphere of the
cerebral cortex.'' Rezso Balint (1907)
In an experiment referred to as ‘The Invisible Gorilla’ a short
film was created of people passing a basketball between one
another. People were asked to count how many times the ball
was passed. They designed the task to be difficult so you would
need intense focus to count the number of times the ball was
passed. Mid-way through the video a person wearing a gorilla
costume walks through the centre of the game. This study has
been performed numerous times and about 50% of people don’t
notice the Gorilla or anything unusual – their intense focus
makes it impossible to recall associations about gorillas etc.
The study shows that in order to notice an unexpected stimulus
you must have some cognitive conscious capacity available. If
you weren’t cognitively focused you would have the attention
available to be surprised and then realize it’s a gorilla, and all of
the other related schemata.
In addition to attention focus that we can give to a specific task,
we also have the ability to place attention on the self; to keep
track of our behaviour when interacting with others and our
environment. For example, someone might say something that
makes you feel extremely mad; and you can think of lots of
things you want to reply to the person; but you decide to ‘save-
face’ and appear polite and reasonable at risk of saying
something that might make the situation worse.
The feelings and responses that become ready in your impulsive
unconscious associative network are often prevented by the
attention abilities of your cognition being refocused onto… in
this case; your social appearance, or to avoid further distress; so
your refocus your efforts onto recalling how to appear socially
polite and then carry out those behaviours associated with being
good company.
Deception; Detection
As we’ve covered, working out what someone is thinking in
their executive control is quite simple; people “When making a
decision, the goal of any decision maker is to utilize a strategy
that will lead to the best results while requiring the least amount
of effort.”
When people have to lie, often they have to consider a lot of
information in order to make up a convincing lie. In order to
account for this a lot of liars spend time rehearsing their stories.
The thing that can make a liar really good at lying is if they have
a well thought out story and an ability to remain completely
calm while being questioned.
You might think, Polygraphs are those lie detection machines
that can accurately show whether someone is lying or not., and
sure the military, and police do use these polygraph machines -
but they don’t use them to detect whether someone is attempting
to deceive them directly - they merely use these tests as a prompt
as to whether they should let this subject go without further
investigation, or follow their hunch and investigate this guy
further. Doing this can quickly allow you to get through a large
number of suspected subjects, check their story out and see if
they were involved in an event in some kind of manner.
The lie Detection machine known as the polygraph isn’t actually
as effective as the publicly widely believe. The main theory as to
why the polygraph could potentially work around the time of its
invention. Was that because deception requires a lie involves a
deliberate, conscious behaviour, then this effort to hide the lie
should provide signals that allow us to detect this unnecessary
(‘if telling the truth’) conscious effort. The Polygraph works on
this principle.
The main way the polygraph works is by the examiner at the
start of the session explaining how effective the machine is at
detecting lies, and will attempt to ‘stress’ the subject out, so that
the subject becomes increasely reactive to the questioning
process, and feels the stress of having to make up answers
quickly on the spot, and allows the examiner to have the subject
‘worry’ about whether the machine caught them lying that time
round.
All the examiner really is, is a clever kind of salesman or
hypnotist or has really put the subject into a bit of a situation
where they honestly believe they are about to get caught, and
therefore are busy worrying about whether they just got caught
lying, and thus causes them to sweat more, causes their heart
rate to rise etc. When in reality in normal life - telling a lie
probably wouldn’t cause those strong physical responses, it’s
just the examiner who has suggested those responses occur
when the subject lies, and thus causes the subject to deliver those
‘physiological reads’ when lying.
The following conditions are necessary for lie detection through
physiological means; (‘i.e. through use of a polygraph
machine.’)
1. “The integrator has a reputation for being tough to fool.
2. The integrator starts out being suspicious
3. The liar has had little practice and no record of success
at lying.
4. The liar is especially vulnerable to the fear of getting
caught
5. The stakes are high
6. Both rewards and punishments are at stake; or, if it is
only one or the other, punishment is at stake;
7. The punishment for being caught lying is great, or the
punishment for what the lie is about is so great that
there is no incentive to confess.
8. The integrator in no way benefits from the lie. “ (p64,
2009, Paul Ekman, telling lies)
If we are to develop a lie detection approach in Sexual
Capitalism, then this certainly seems like a good route for how
we can work out when someone is lying, by having them give us
a signal or cue when they are lying. Perhaps we can alert the
subject we are speaking to that - whenever they lie they tend to
look upwards, and then see if the subject makes a special
conscious effort to keep their eyes perfectly still when they are
answering a question that we presume to be responded to with a
lie.
However, the detection of deception either by specialist
equipment i.e. sophisticated processing coupled cameras to
recognize eye dilation, micro-expressions, or polygraphs to
detect skin-conductivity due to sweating – increased skin
temperature etc. Contary to popular belief; although research
has found lying with such facial and bodily cues as increased
pupil size and lip pressing little significant research has found
any reliable cues of lying in regards to posture (i.e. bodily
positioning, i.e. arms crossed etc. or blinking.
Most people think that lie detection in day to day life; is easy!
That, peoples facial expressions, voice patterns gives away tells
that reveals people are lying about relatively day to day
mundane things. It’s important here to emphasize that to reveal
whether someone is giving misinformation, or avoiding certain
topics; is close to impossible; without setting up a particular
scenario that structures this game of potential deceit. To detect
lies using physical tells, requires that the participant is
apprehensive to the point of stress about you discovering the
truth.
Even if you could find cues (like stress levels) amongst subjects
under criminal investigation that indicate deception; this would
still be irrelevant for most of the readers of this book – as we are
more interested in uncovering the secrets, of friends, family,
partners, and random strangers for the sake of some form of
personal satisfaction i.e. as part of a trick, a way of impressing a
girl or showing dominance over male competition. And with
regards of these type of everyday, inconsequencial truths and
lies scholars state that its unlikely to expect any behavioural
differences; that marked differences (i.e. stress) are liked to high
stakes lies “I didn’t commit the murder” (If he is discovered he
will get a life sentence in prison).
For this reason, such information cannot be used as evidence to
condemn someone in the majority of court houses across the
world; as the evidence is deemed unreliable, open to mis-
interpretation, and can easily be tricked by further-deceptions
that a deceiver might employ.
Therefore, most interrogations, the sole purpose of the
interrogation is to either gain further information that allows for
investigory pursuit, or to cross examine another person involved
in the case i.e. a witness – thereby discovering an illogical or
incoherent story; therefore showing deception behaviour, OR to
gain a confession from the participant.
It might seem crazy to assume that people would confess to
embarrassing, illegal, personal details to an investigatory,
especially if there are likely to be dire consequences for you if
you happen to confess; however it appears that participants find
it surprisingly difficult to withhold information from a trained
investigator.
There is not a good psychological or physiological sign or signal
that obviously portrays whether lying just by looking at their
behaviour. The best way to catch a liar according to
Frank,Menasco,O’Sullivan. (2008) is to put the liar in a situation,
or answer questions that force them to betray their own lies, by
answering with responses or factors surrounding the lie that
contradict the story they claim. Being as many people - even
those with special training to be able to detect liars, often have a
success ratio not much better than chance at guessing who the
liar is.
Frank,Menasco,O’Sullivan. (2008) tested an hypothesis to see if
by just analyzing the elements of the story for their logic conflicts
would result in a higher accuracy of correct guesses as to
whether a subject interviewed was lying or not, they discovered
that this method was far superior at detecting lies, than that of
those just using psychological tells.
Once I was in a situation where I had no choice but to think
carefully about how I answered questions, for me it would
usually be a very stressful situation, but I knew it was important
so all I told myself is “Vince, just imagine you’re just in a normal
business meeting. Be relaxed as possible, focus on making the
muscles in your back relaxed and keep your breathing smooth”.
The reason I knew that this was the best thing to do was because
It’s impossible to think through all of the story in advance of
being questioned about it. People simply don’t have the working
memory to be able to think through all the different directions an
interrogator could take, and develop convincing answers that
coherently fit together and deliver your answer quick enough to
look like you didn’t have to think about it, or remember your
story.
Even though there is no single body language tell that will allow
you to recognize whether someone is lying or not, because of the
advantage an interrogator has, it makes it almost impossible to
lie convincingly, because the interviewed subject needs to not
only consider what the interrogator is likely to say next and prep
their answer, but also they need to look as if they aren’t thinking
about anything in particular, and that answering these questions
doesn’t take a significant mental effort.
It’s very difficult to hide the fact that you are making a mental
effort - when people are making a mental effort their eyes tend
to dilate up to a certain point, and then it reaches a level where
the subject simply can’t cope with the amount of data it’s got to
consider and the working memory goes into a shut down and
stops considering all the information.
Remember, the brain only has so much glucose immediately
available to metabolize. Unless your in a life threatening
situation your probably not going to pull out all of the guns and
start breaking down all the necessary vitamins, hormones,
glucose needed in order to be able to process all the information
needed at the time in order to get yourself out of a situation
which for a 21st century human life might be a life changing
moment if a mistake in the storytelling is made.
Unfortunately the brain is hundreds of thousands of years old,
it’s therefore hard to hide the fact that you are having to make all
these leaps and bonds to make up quick convincing answers
with simply not enough computing power. From knowing this,
despite there being no psychological pinnoco response that
allows us to instantly see ‘oh his nose has grown an inch we can
be sure he is lying’ because no such ‘psychological tell’ exists
then we need to rely on our abilites to put the subject in a
situation that either causes them to tell the truth.
Or use techniques to put the subject into a position where they
have to make a mistake in the answers they give, and after they
have made that tiny mistake exploit it. Or what you need to do is
to put people into a situation where they become higher stressed
and unable to make rational decisions about how to answer the
questions you offer them.
When we hear the word ‘Lying’ we tend to think of ‘Bad people’
and negative things, but plenty of studies have shown that Lying
in fact is just a part of everyday life, with most normal people
making about 3-4 lies per day. When you hear that number you
might think, “oh thats not that many lies per day” but then when
you investigate the statistics those lies actually end up being
about 25% of the conversations that the person engaged in, in
that single day contained lies. This means that actually a huge
amount of the conversations people are having contain lies
within them.
“People lie most frequently about their feelings, their
preferences, and their attitudes and opinions. Less often, they lie
about their actions, plans, and whereabouts. Lies about
achievements and failures are also commonplace. Occasionally,
people tell lies in pursuit of material gain, personal convenience,
or escape from punishment. Much more commonly, however,
the rewards that liars seek are psychological ones. They lie to
make themselves appear more sophisticated or more virtuous
than they think their true characteristics warrant, and
Sometimes, you can tell when someone's lying, but other times it
may not be so easy.” DePaulo, Miller (2004)
In other words there are plenty of circumstances where people
actively try to deceive us; from knowing what they are thinking
of. In order for deception behaviour to occur; firstly someone
must be thinking of something you want to know (so you need
to implant that idea into their head; prime) and secondly there
must be a conflict, a reason that you simply cannot know any
more about whether the schema is or isn’t activated in their long
term memory.
In other words, for someone to need to lie, they must firstly
believe that your wanting to know a piece of information and are
purposely distracting you from knowing the answer. They might
throw you a red herring, something you can think of instead of
hearing the answer directly. Or they might answer your question
straight on with some answer that is either coherent with the
information you have, or is inconsistent with the information
you already have about the case.
One strategy that they use in the police is to have one cop that is
on your side, and another cop that is working against you. The
reason they do this is because the nice cop can tell you that,
“look this case isn’t really about you, we are trying to catch the
bigger fish, we just need to know the honest answer for just this
one question in order so we can deal with this enquiry further,
can you do that favour for me?”
So the Good cop has gone in there and offered you the chance to
get out of the investigation providing that you just answer one
question honestly, now what he is going to do is try and find
part of your story where he knows it will conflict with every
excuse you could possibly make, he wants you to answer just
that one part truthfully so it voids the rest of your excuses -
which he hasn’t heard yet - as you haven’t been put in the
awkward position of having to justify and explain yourself so
far, you're still in the position where you - look like you're going
to walk out of here completely safe and the same as before you
walked in.
What the bad cop does is scare you, they try and hard sell you.
“Look, your going to get a huge fine for this sort of thing. I
would let you off, but it’s not my decision the judge is a really
nasty son of a gun and he is pretty hard on this type of offense.”
the Job of this police officer is to hear all your excuses, to get the
false story that your going to feed him and investigate it and
find its flaws, either by investigating it in this conversation or
investigating it by doing some internet searches, some CCTV
lookups, maybe pop a phone call into some kind of government
department with more information about a certain type of
information.
Sometimes you just flag up on a system, they know you’ve done
something but they don’t know what - they wouldn’t usually
care about this ‘flag’ but now they are investigating you for
something else and they are a little hot on your case then its a
good reason just to probe you further.
Because there is no definite way of spotting a lie with
psychology alone – by getting a read or tell from a subject then
the main focus in – lie detection – more focuses on creating a
provoking situation – that scares people into confessing, or
makes people reactive to a situation that causes them to reveal
‘body language tells’ that they usually wouldn’t reveal.
Therefore a large proportion of interrogation; involves creating
‘high stakes’ scenarios; that prone the participant to think of the
schema you hope they will confess; while at the same time
placing the emphasis on having the participant have to either
‘hide’ or just ‘admit’ the information.
In addition to those that confess, the majority of liars are caught
because “They are betrayed by their words because of
carelessness. It is not that they couldn’t disguise what they said,
or that they tried to and failed, but simply that they neglected to
fabricate carefully.”
That is, to create Deceptive behaviour requires 'conflict'. For
example; in one study - to increase motivation for deceptive
behavior, participants were told that they were allowed to keep
the stolen money in case they could convince the interrogator
that they were not guilty. "Human performance regulation
involves mechanisms that detect and resolve conflict in
information processing . Karim, Schneider, Lotze, et al (2010)
We have already briefly covered the behavioural cues; i.e.
sweatiness, increased pulse, higher body temperature, anxious
behaviours; that are signs of deception. The other category we
shall discuss that is more valuable to this working memory
section of the book is cognitions associated to memory recall,
and thoughts related to those memories.
“ The liar must think harder than a truth teller to cover up, create
events that have not happened, and will also engage in
additional mental effort to come up with the proper phrasing
while simultaneously reducing the potential negative emotional
reaction of the other. This extra effort tends to manifest itself
with longer speech latencies, increased speech disturbances, less
plausible content, less verbal and vocal involvement, less talking
time, more repeated words and phrases, and so forth”.
The best way I’ve found to detect lies; other than trying to
anticipate the working memory-impulsive system operations of
an individuals, and check for changes to your expectations is
called the Undeutsch hypothesis. It’s a really simple method to
grasp in order to discover if someone is lying.
This means that experienced events have memory qualities that
are apparent upon description that are different from events that
have not been experienced. “Events that were not actually
experienced feature more ambivalence, have fewer details, a
poorer logical structure, less plausibility, more negative
statements, and are less embedded in context.” people who are
lying tend to be less likely to admit that they “can’t remember
the details” they don’t say “oh I explained the story slightly
wrong there, what I meant was” as a truth teller, and they tend
to speak more negatively about life and events than the truth
teller, they also infrequently mention themselves, places, names
of things, and other people in their stories.
The times I’ve mentally-logged been nearly caught on my own
lies has always been on a simple question; I would be on a phone
call, perhaps speaking to a girl, or an employer and they would
ask “What’s the weather like there?” or they might say “It’s a
bad day isn’t it?... “ (In reference to the weather). Let’s take the
latter example first, once upon a time I was in school, and I had
to call in sick because I was attending a hypnosis & NLP training
in Brighton; when I spoke to the teacher on the phone she said
“It’s a bad day isn’t it?” referring to the weather, I agreed, even
though I was in sunny Brighton some 250 miles away, I couldn’t
possibly know what the weather was like in the city my school
was from. It turns out that she was using “The Undeutsch
hypothesis” on me (she was my philosophy teacher) and using
that philosophic method had in one simple swoop successfully
deduced that I was lying using the simple powers of philosophic
reasoning.
Once I had a girlfriend, but I was secretly in love with another
girl; these two girls lived in completely opposite ends of the
country, with my home address being a completely different
third city. I left my girlfriend’s house and went to see the girl I
loved, and my girlfriend called me and asked “Are you home?”
to which I replied “Yes” she said “What’s the weather like?” I
said “It’s nice yeah, it’s sunny” for all I know she could have
easily Googled and checked the weather in my hometown and
discovered it was raining, but I wouldn’t know; and therefore I
would be caught out as a liar.
Lie detection these days, is quite easy; I mean I could check out
what someone was saying on so many levels, suppose someone
told me that they went and stayed at a hotel, I might ask “Oh,
what colour was the carpet” and then I would hear if they had to
answer quickly and abruptly, or if they genuinely knew the
answer to the question and thought about the answer and I
would hopefully hear that in their response.
However, let’s suppose that there is no way of me being able to
mentally discern whether they are telling the truth about the
colour, or not, that I can’t tell whether recalled the colour, or
mentally invented a carpet colour.
Then the solution is simply; I must research the hotel and find
out the carpet colour; with the speed, and density of internet
information this is an easy task that should take less than a
minute of research; and if you can’t find the carpet colour of the
hotel by the pictures on the website, then you need to call up the
hotel reception and ask.
“Another way of making an interview situation more
challenging is by inviting interviewees to elaborate on what they
just have said. This might well be difficult, particularly for liars.
Liars might have prepared themselves about what they are
going to say, but are unlikely to have prepared the amount of
details which are required in extensive elaboration requests.”
The researchers explain that when you use this technique of
asking the subject to elaborate on what they said they face a
difficult situation - where they need to make a choice as to
whether they just ‘dig themselves deeper’ and instead of just
being able to rely on their pre-prepared excuse story they will
have to spontaneously invent new details to add depth to the
story. Or they could claim that they don’t actually recall
anymore information. Either way its going to look suspicious
that they don’t remember anything more - or will force them to
make a mistake by having them invent more details to the
fabricated story on the fly.
Priming confession
This morning while writing this section of my book; I received
an email from a potential customer; this customer is female and
particularly beautiful; she asked “How can I tell if someone is
who they really say they are?” I replied the following;
“In short, there is no real way of telling if someone is telling the
truth from their behaviour. The only way you would really
know if someone wasn’t who they say they are, is if you
mentioned a topic outside their ‘character’ but within their
knowledge of being someone else. Suppose you’re dealing with
a spy; and you suspect that they really studied for a period at
another university to what they claim; you might mention how
that city is “such a beautiful city” and then mention something
untrue about the city “its centre has the most beautiful square
with a statue of the king” if the participant at this point looks
confused, or annoyed by what you’re saying, then it’s obvious
that they know for a fact that the centre perhaps doesn’t have a
square nor a statue of a king, and therefore you know that they
spent some time in that city. Therefore they have answered “Out
of character” and you now know that they are engaging in
deceptive behaviour.
I continued with the girl; “Suppose I was going out with you”
and “I wanted to know something about you, like a secret, but
you couldn’t tell me” I would mention it and see if you react, to
check whether you really have a schema that is activated for
their ideas.
Other than this method, there isn’t a great deal of solutions
psychology wise in order to detect if someone is lying. Unless
you do something more invasive; for example, Airports put you
in a high pressure scenario, making you question whether you’re
a bad person, whether someone has tampered with your bag, or
maybe you accidentally have touched drugs or have had a gun
snuck on your person; and that if they discover that this has
occurred, there will be bad consequences; that you should
probably just admit everything. They question you with signs;
“Do you have a gun?”
These prompt you to act scared, and if you act too scared
because you are hiding something and now you’re thinking
about it, because the idea is elicited. Then you are taken aside to
be questioned.
Like, a policeman might say, "Do you know what money
laundry is" I think they just test people to see whether when you
mention money laundry, what happens inside the persons head;
do they have a clear understanding? Will they look confused
when you mention it like the textbook way rather than the
gangsta way?
Because this girl is attractive; I decided to play around a little bit
in the email; I said take this for an example; the other day a girl
asked me “Can you make me reveal my secrets?” So I asked her
“can you think of one secret that you can’t tell me” she said
“yes” at this point I know the idea is elicited.
So I said "do you know the feeling where you just want to tell
someone something, because you can't get it out of your head"
she said yes. she changed topic and then she told me her secret
minute later. See the majority of investigations; by people who
need to know whether someone is lying, don’t rely on
behavioural cues, or cognitive inconsistencies, but instead on
whether the story is logical, or they focus on having the person
confess; and the vast majority of the time; people do confess –
even to the gravest, most high stake information. – So that’s
really the way you tell whether someone is lying;
You just, test their knowledge, and see what quickly is recalled,
what schemas remain activated, and what they veto (i.e. try to
avoid)
I said in the email “Ok, I know you’re wondering, how you can
make someone confess, is it really as simple as the example
Vince already listed? But truthfully making people do things is
really quite easy, it just takes like a question. [I’m fooling around
with the girl here because she’s beautiful]
"Have you ever sent naked pictures over the internet?"
I say, “it’s a just a question right? That just because I ask if you
ever have, doesn’t mean you will want to send me some pictures
of yourself right now, right?” But I continue “This wouldn’t be
good enough, because you know this is a game, that although
you know how to send naked pictures, and I know you’re
thinking about potentially doing it, doesn’t mean you’re about to
do it. So let’s make this a little more real – with something a little
more present and relevant.
So I add the line, "You’re very beautiful" – you see with a very
simple question followed by a statement, I’ve created a situation
that would have never existed before.
Following this email, I pasted the script from the (2010) Film
about Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg - The Social
Network and his legal disputes. In the following scene, a lawyer
explains how its so easy to have people consider a bias, an
anchor that is completely irrelevant to all the known facts about
a case, but can completely skew the way the case is interpreted;
and therefore the outcome. For this reason, despite it being clear
that he did invent Facebook; she advises he still “pays off” his
competition.
[SCRIPT]
Mark Zuckerberg says “What happens now?” Marylin (Assistant
Lawyer)“Sy and the rest of them are at the palm having a steak.
Then they'll come back up to the office and start working on a
settlement agreement to present to you.” Mark Zuckerberg says;
“They want me to settle?” Marylin says “Oh yeah and your
going to have to pay them some bonus money too.” Mark
Zuckerberg says “Why?” Marylin says “Cause your gonna need
these guys to sign a non-disclosure agreement and you're gonna
need to be indemnified. they say one unflattering word about
you in public and you own their house, wife and kids.”
Mark Zuckerberg says: “I don't see why I have to pay them
anything, I invented Facebook.” Marylin says; “I'm talking about
what a Jury will see. Thats what I do, Thats what i'm doing here.
I'm trying to specialize in voirdire-Jury Selection. Clothes, Hair,
Wedding ring, speaking style, likeability.” Mark Zuckerberg; ”I
don't see what likability has to do with showing that I invented
facebook?” Marylin; “I've been lincensed to practice law for all of
20 months and I could get a Jury to believe you planted the story
about Eduardo. You know how? Just by asking the question.
Watch. "Why weren't you at the sorority party that night?" Mark
Zuckerberg; “You think i'm the one who called the police?”
Marylin says “Doesn't matter. I asked the question and now
everybody's thinking about it. You lost the jury in the first 10
minutes.”
How can you know what someone else is thinking?
What you see is what you get: A lot of students of mine, seem to
make an effort to guess what others are thinking. Like they
somehow assume that people are lying or hiding something
when they speak, that they aren’t telling the entire story; I
always assume exactly the opposite to this. The moment you
stop judging, and guessing what others are thinking, and just
assume that people always tell the truth you will be a lot better
at guessing what others are thinking.
Law of Least Effort: A general “law of least effort” applies itself
to cognitive as well as physical exertion. The law asserts that if
there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will
eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. In
the economy of action, effort is a cost, and the acquisition of skill
is driven by the balance of benefits and costs. Laziness is built
deep into our nature. Kahneman, D. (2011:37)
What’s primed?: “Thoughts last a while” The mental machinery
in the brain; stays active for some time after you’ve stopped
using it. For example; every time I stop writing this book and
look at my Facebook or check my phone, I will think about other
things other than writing this book for a considerable amount of
time. Activation of mental schema’s lasts about 12 seconds
unless reactivated by either habit, or further stimulus causing
reactivation. So you can bet that if a girl looks at you from across
the room, and then turns back to look at you 15seconds later that
it’s likely that she has been thinking about you in her working
memory sometime within those 15 seconds.
People look where they are thinking: if someone is thinking of
work, they are likely looking at the floor, or looking at the clock,
or something along those lines. If someone is thinking about
friends they are likely looking at people or their phone. People
are quite obvious as to what they are thinking as they use the
physical world to help them organise their mental thoughts.
Because schema-activation is context-dependent; i.e. to think
about what work you need to complete for today you might
open up your email to see what tasks that offers i.e. a client
might have emailed you and therefore you might as a response
try to sell him a product, and this will make up a portion of your
day. Or it might be that you’re a student, and in order to remind
yourself to start an assignment that you open up your word
document. People use physical items, as cues for mental
reminders to cause system 1 schema’s to be elicited.
Eye movements: When someone is using their working memory,
they may have visual-preference eye accessing cues. This usually
is a habit from development through the cognitive stages of their
early childhood development. This means that they will look up
for internal senses of visual information, to the sides of their
eyes, or look around from left to right to hear mental noises; and
look down to either talk inside their own head, I.e. to use some
kind of mental dialogue, or connect with some kind of feeling.
However these assumptions I have listed here are not to be
trusted; there are various reasons why. For example the very fact
that on the whole thoughts that are recalled from system 1 are
likely incomplete, they consist of a variety of different
associations, with few pictures, sounds, and some kind of
overarching feeling in between, rather than these “modalities”
sound, emotion, imagery occupying separate thoughts usually
such distinctions in thought don’t occur. The only real
scientifically statistically significant way to see if any person you
experiment on is using their working memory is to measure
their pupil dilation.
“TOTS and HOTS”
We have things we see for example “there is a dog” this is a
thought that must be going on somewhere in my brain if a dog is
present, but then we have the thought “I am seeing a dog” If I
am aware that a dog is in my presence. Therefore the majority of
thoughts are simply extra-versions of primed associations that
already are activated schema in the impulsive system 1.
For most of us most of the time, it seems concurrent possibility-
explicit representations automatically lead to appropriate HOTs.
The difficulty of using possibility-explicit representations
without HOTs is illustrated by Wegner’s (1994) task of asking
people to not think of white bears for a specified time. People
find this extraordinarily difficult. In this task, a possibility-
explicit imperative representation is formed by the SAS “Do not
produce representations of white bears”. This representation
can be used to guide the lower system, and also monitor its
success. But if a second order thought is automatically formed “I
am intending not to produce representations of white bears”, the
HOT about intending makes the content of the possibility-
explicit representation, which includes the concept white bear,
the content of a conscious mental state. That is, engaging in the
task to not think of white bears, itself leads to the HOT that
makes one consciously think of the concept of white bears.
It might be objected that the HOT of intending makes one
consciously think of the concept of white bears, rather than to
consciously think of white bears per se, and it is the latter that is
demanded by Wegner’s task. That is, one need not fail the
Wegner task simply by virtue of having a HOT of intending.
Working with the activated schemas of others;
If we want to know the answer to a simple question with
another; for example “Is my lover cheating on me?” This
shouldn’t be hard to discern using the information covered in
the book. If the “lover” has cheated, then when you ask her
about where she was or whether she loves you, her pupils will
dilate as she uses her working memory to construct an answer.
If someone knows what a cat is, then the moment the word cat is
presented then we have no choice but to activate the schemas in
our brain associated with cats; this is assuming that the ease of
activation for the cat schema is the most frequently repeated,
and ease to recall over currently stimulated competition for
attention.
Cognitive working memory has ways of organising Impulsive
system thoughts. For example it can recall more than one idea at
once. Like with the example of The Psychology Humour; that is
covered at some point during this book;
Some things that working memory can do is “When A occurs do
B”. It does this by witnessing “A” occurring naturally in the
environment, and then immediately recalls “B” either by using
working memory to recall “B” or that “B” was already primed in
the impulsive system; this leads to the causal link between “A”
and “B” triggering the other; these are called possibility-explicit
imperative’s and a representation of this could be the following
example “When I finish the next paragraph, I will make some
green tea” This sets up the lower system to monitor the activity
of completing the paragraph and trigger the getting up to make
green tea.
. Indeed, seconds later, when one has just finished the
paragraph, one might find oneself getting up to make the tea.
However, other on-going contention scheduling processes that
occur while finishing the paragraph may have in the meantime
activated other schemata, so tea making is not initiated. (see
Dienes (2006, 8)
You can set your memory to search for capital cities that start
with N or for French existentialist novels. And when you rent a
car at London’s Heathrow Airport, the attendant will probably
remind you that “we drive on the left side of the road over
here.” In all these cases, you are asked to do something that does
not come naturally, and you will find that the consistent
maintenance of a set requires continuous exertion of at least
some effort.” (Kahneman, 2010)
For example; I’ve noticed that people who park their cars in
public car parks. Often don’t remember the exact position of the
car, but instead they use cues to find their car. For example you
might walk a certain direction “Until I see yellow wall”
(impulsive system) when you reach the yellow wall you might
not have a casual-impulsive action planned so you ask in your
working memory “What now?” and perhaps you decide “Recall
what floor level it’s on” you suddenly remember seeing a big “3”
when you left the car park; and then suddenly you start walking
to your left realizing that you’re on the right floor, and
instinctively as part of recalling the “3” you now are walking
towards the geometrical position your car is parked on the “3”
level.
That is to say that “All executive function tasks” are about the
organisation, recalling, comparing and contrasting of possibility-
explicit representations in system 1 (the impulsive system). That
when one activity occurs it schedules another to be completed,
We have a sense of free will partly because we represent that we
could have done otherwise#. (Dienes 2008:7) that we have an
ability to recall other associations and overtime change the way
our impulsive system is setup to function.
For example; currently I’m living in Lisbon, Portugal. I don’t
speak any Portuguese, but often I’m told that by others that I
know what their conversation was about even though they
spoke in Portuguese and not in English. I know when someone
is ending a conversation by the sounds they make, I don’t know
how they are ending the conversation, and I once considered in
my working memory several words to say upon departing
someone in Portuguese. Now I only recognize the sounds, and
sometimes I say the words but without knowing what they
mean, and I see that the person I am saying bye to somehow
seems pleased with my words.
If contention scheduling were just left to itself, we would be
entirely creatures of habit. If we always drive a certain route
from home to work, that route is likely to be taken every time if
contention scheduling were the only control process at work. But
sometimes we can decide to do something new; for example, to
make a detour at the traffic lights by turning left rather than
right in order to buy milk at the supermarket. This new action
requires the SAS (overcoming a strong pre-existing response).
Which Envelope has the money in?
How cans a simple psychological trick, provide us details into
the complex mental working life of people? I think you know by
this point in the book that it can tell us a whole lot.
My good friend – and colleague – João Blümel; has for a number
of years been performing the following routine (which can be
purchased in greater linguistical detail, and different
performance style if you contact him) and the first time I saw it
my mind was blown; but over the years the routine has showed
me more and more how predictable we really are and what we
are thinking and why we think it in response to the
environmental context that we find ourselves in.
He’s how the effect looks to the audience. “I want you to pick
one of these two envelopes, one has the money in, and one
doesn’t – the one you pick, is the one you get to keep” – a
random audience member comes on stages – and picks up any
one of the two envelopes, and opens it and inside is a piece of
paper that says “NOTHING” – then the audience member is
instructed to open the other envelope, and when they open it
they find a large amount of money. The performer says “you
could have chosen any envelope to keep, and now you take
home the one with nothing”.
However; the effect is really quite different to how the audience
interpret it. There are two envelopes on the table, with the one
with the “nothing” being underneath the one with the money.
The performer brings the participant to the table, and doesn’t
announce anything about one of the envelopes having money in.
he says “which ever envelope you pick, is the one you get to
keep” he separates the two envelopes pushing the one with the
“nothing” inside towards the participant and then pulls back the
one with the money inside. He then says “you might think, that
the reason I pushed this envelope forwards is because it’s the
one I want you to pick it… but just pick an envelope” and then
they nearly always pick up the envelope that was pushed
forwards he then says “I’m giving you five seconds to change
your mind, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1” and then he reveals that they chose the
envelope without the money in.
Why does this work?
Well, according to what we’ve outlined in the book – when an
option is easiest, it’s the option that is primed – in this case it will
cost less effort for the person to reach over and grab the
envelope with nothing in – However, the problem is that “By
picking the easiest envelope, am I being deceived?” that people
always have the ability to cancel the ideas that crop up in their
mind – however in this case this potential complaint is handled
“by me pushing this envelope forwards, you might think that I
want you to pick this envelope, but I really don’t mind, the
envelope you pick is the one you keep” this means that the
subjects potential complaint “I’m being tricked, so I should
choose the other one” is handled, by “I might be tricked, I might
not, so, either way it doesn’t matter what I choose.. therefore I
should chose the option that is most economical (primed)” –
they select the envelope with nothing in.
However; I need to repeat something very important once more
– If they subject was aware that there was a large quantity of
money in one of the envelopes, they might more carefully
scrutinize and –not go with – the most primed – most
economical choice, instead they might analyse, contemplate lots
of potential scenarios; making the weight of the priming that
you’ve built easily outweighed by lots of other scenarios
activating all types of schema’s and response potentials of
picking up any one of the two envelopes – if this happened the
probability of them selecting either envelope would be close to
50%; which means you would lose a great deal of money half the
time you performed this psychological routine – in our case as
professional performers we can’t have that occur and therefore
need to be sure to perform this routine and know exactly what
our subject is thinking.
To summarize;
 People choose what is economical
 This is said to be primed
 That what is primed is the response potential (RP)
 The envelope that is pushed forwards is the one people
want to select
 However tested people tend to double-check whether
they should do their first instinct.
 But a simple line such as “You might think I am bluffing
you” easily handles this event
 By exploring the example of a simple 50:50 choice of
which envelope to select – and how the probabilities
swing from moment to moment; every time new
information is offered or considered by the subject
should hopefully show you that even a choice as simple
as selecting which envelope is never as simple as 50:50 –
and that what you’re thinking at any point during the
decision process is perfectly predictable and open to
influence.
How to know what number someone is
thinking of between 1-10?
As covered, it’s very difficult to detect whether someone is lying
by physiological means alone (how someone looks, acts etc.) that
even those who are highly trained professionals in this field do
little better than chance when they can’t control environmental
factors. That trained professionals often rely on illogical
arguments – to pick apart peoples stories until they can gain a
lawful confession out of the individual from pointing out the
problems in their story.
Physiological cues; will only work on someone who is somewhat
cooperative, for various reasons – perhaps because they are
stupid, maybe because they want to be caught, they think you’re
a genius, or are scared. For this reason detection of lies using
physiological cues won’t work when the content of the lie isn’t
emotionally-sacred, at risk of being discovered, has dangerous
consequences for concealing the information etc. This method of
lie-detection also won’t work on psychopaths, or highly
intelligent people like college students; for example college
students when interrogated by trained interrogators to see if
they were lying – the professionals only guessed correctly if they
were lying or telling the truth 53% of the time – little better than
chance.
Using the method described above about discovering illogical
components of someone’s stories – and noticing the lack of
descriptive, and emotional quality to someone’s description of a
chain of events – I can point out where a story doesn’t make
sense, and thereby know to some extent when I am being lied to
– but this isn’t a passive approach, I must actively play with
someone’s stories in order to decipher this – and to do this in
polite conversation – or even part of a magic trick, often seems
rude and poor mannered. Sometimes friends will ask me to
decipher whether they are lying and I will use the technique
listed above.
However when it came to simple tricks like “What number
between 1-10 am I thinking of” it became a much more
complicated matter; as I couldn’t see a discernible way of
picking apart their story for something as simple as “What
number am I thinking of?”
When a magician asks a person what number they are thinking
of between one and ten, there’s a variety of psychological things
a magician can do to influence their number. The most simple
one is when you say “Quickly just think of a number between
one and ten?” they go “yes” and if they answered quickly then
you assume they went for the easiest number to think of – which
is usually seven – at this point you can say “That was the first
number you thought of in your head right?” If they agree then
you know it’s most likely seven – at which point you make your
announcement – the number your thinking of is seven. However
there’s another thing you could say if they didn’t agree “You
didn’t go for the first number you came up with in your head,
you went for the second” I might continue “because you thought
it would be too obvious, and your trying to catch me out” If they
agree then it might be that they have gone for something close to
the edges of the range for example – nine or one – or something
obscure like – four – but never five because its dead central.
Other than this, you have no tangible way of knowing the
number they are thinking of at this point. You could break it
down a further stage – “I’m going to ask you is it ‘X’ number and
every time I ask you whether it’s a number, you lie and say – no
its not” – then you sequentially count from one to ten saying “is
it this number ?” the problem is that this method is no different
to the lie detection on college students using only physiological
cues – unless the person is scared, emotionally silly, or thinks
you’re a genius and is somehow suggested to give you cues –
then there isn’t going to be ANY discernible cues.
Because, the thing is, the responses would be identical-ish,
providing someone doesn't feel an emotional impact or that you
can work out there thought. it just sounds like "No the number
isn't seven", "No the number isn't six" Well, One idea I had
would be "How did you come to decide upon that number?"
They might say "oh it was the first number into my head" This
wouldn't give me enough information To assess whether they
were lying, So I came up with a further question "Is this your
favourite number?" It’s likely it’s not their favourite number But
the person has a responsibility to lie. So, they should confirm,
YES it’s my favourite number.
That’s the thing; with certain questions we think that we
shouldn't pursue further questions. That it’s rude to, or whatever
or that it destroys the game. But, I think destroying 'their game'
of hiding secrets from you is the exact method of discovering
their secrets. Because a person who is attempting to hide secrets
will unnessarily make up stories, exgerate, and act ‘too
convincing’ whereas a person who doesn’t ‘have a favourite
number’ or a person who ‘hasn’t fully decided on which number
they mentally selected, or the reason for why they selected it’
those people are the ones who are telling the truth - rather than
the person who says “yeah I chose this number because it’s my
favourite”.

A diary of a stranger

I’ve decided that it would be useful to follow the imaginary
thoughts of an imaginary stranger. Made up from appearances; I
wrote this while on a balcony in a hotel in Tenerife, Playa de Las
Americas while watching people chatter and buy drinks around
the swimming pool; I have a bird’s eye view of the pool, but
cannot see peoples facial expressions or hear any sounds from
what they are saying.
Two girls are chatting, initially their rapport is weak, and then
they are pacing and matching each other. One of them stands up
briefly and then sits down. I do not know why this is, but I
expect within 2 minutes she will stand up in the exact manner as
this and will go somewhere. Being as she keeps doing some kind
of dance like movement, I assume it’s something energetic that
she is required to go and do, and the ordinal reason she stood
was to act as a prompt to remind herself to later stand up in a
moment to go complete a task. As the response potential of
standing, will be linked to a series of thoughts, that she cannot
possibly hold in working memory at the same time as
communicating with her friend, so she postpones her future
action, and stands up and sits down again to link the association
of the future action with the feeling of standing; so that she can
temporarily use her attention to focus on the details that the
friend brings into her consciousness during the conversation.
One of the girls touches her shorts (she is wearing a bikini
beneath them) and then is interrupted by a guy who comes over.
I suspect that this is her rehearsing that when the guy leaves she
will remove her shorts, in the exact same manner which she has
just mentally rehearsed in order to offer her a system 1
impulsive trigger later on.
When the guy comes over she turns this hand movement, which
was ordinary to remove her shorts, to instead rub her leg.
Rubbing her leg, is likely associated with the primed schema’s
such as being attracted to the guy; but probably would never
have likely occurred if the girls hand wasn’t already in the
primed position and her response potential to use that hand
wasn’t already activated due to her previous movement.
She looks at her friend, (assuming for approval) and perhaps
during this moment she asks herself what to make of the
situation “Is it awkward?”, “Do you fancy him?” or some
question such like that; however it could be that she has no
thought at all, and is just trying to re-establish rapport with her
friend, either to indicate to the guy that the friends are a team, or
to make her friend feel comfortable with the exchange.
After this prompt, the friend who isn’t so much in the
conversation with the guy, suddenly becomes more animated
and swaps words and gestures with the guy, as they try to match
each other’s body language, but for whatever reason it seems out
of sync and mistimed.
The guy’s energy drops. The girl who was going to stand up
automatically; and walks over to the bar, at this point the
remaining girls hand touches the cable of her headphones (that
aren’t currently in her ears) but then her hand moves away from
her headphones and she continues talking to the guy.
It’s likely that within the next two minutes she will put her
headphones in her ears the moment that either the guy leaves or
the friend returns or her hand accidentally stumbles across the
cable therefore prompting the idea in her mind.
This was just a brief insight and final conclusion into what – a
kind of mind read based on the tells someone gives in reference
to the psychological, confession and deception model we have
outlined above.
Sexual Capitalism – Learning Inner Game for
yourself and teaching it to her
I really didn’t want to mention ‘Inner Game’ in my book,
because, it’s usually just popular psychology applied to
seduction. There are massive claims on the internet that by
simply having a ‘good attitude’ you can hypnotize, and get with
thousands of women.
This really isn’t true, because if it was true there would be no
techniques associated with pick up. But there clearly are, you
can go to a nightclub with a pen and paper and jot down what
interactions you see work and fail and you will clearly see the
same routines, patterns, and approaches performed by guys who
have never read a book on how to hypnotize or seduce women.
Besides that as covered throughout the book there are numerous
studies that cite support for various tactics, gambits, and games
that guys and girls play in order to strengthen feelings of lust in
their initial interactions.
The reason I’m writing about inner game is because. It stands to
reason that if hypnosis as a PUA approach relies on the attention
play, defined by economics, which is then extended using
progressive compliance. Then the girls’ ability to pay attention to
the moment and ignore distractions is crucial.
And being as subjects tend to mimic the body language and
attitudes of the performer, it stands to reason that he should be a
model for these Zen-REM-like qualities himself. If a performer
can enjoy the moment, feel relaxed in his own energy, and be
fully present to the agent then perhaps she can understand how
to do these things for herself, and through this find her lust for
the performer.
This will encourage her to experience her own sense of presence,
and thus ability to full engage imaginatively.
To quote the power of now Zen is when you “Just watch the
thought, feel the emotion, observe the reaction” until you
become aware of your own still, observing presence, “the silent
watcher.”
I see Zen as a state of relaxation; you can be energetic in your
experience of the moment. To quote another Zen philosopher,
Andre Gide states “Seize from every moment its unique novelty
and do not prepare your joys” or Blaise Pascal states “I have
discovered that all of man’s unhappiness derives from only one
source, not being able to sit quietly in a room”
In seduction Zen is frequently cited as a kind of relaxation; I
recommend being energetic in your experience of the moment.
Raw energy comes from the freedom of experiencing gestaltian
thought cycles.
If you cannot relax because you have concerns about your
career, life, etc. I really suggest that you take up meditation,
naps, yoga, breathing exercises, practice ‘not thinking’ and take
up drinking and doing what you feel whenever you feel like it.
Being your own man; Often you will hear girls say “Be a man” it
seems like girls have a clearer concept of what exactly a man is
compared to a guy’s internal impression.
You might even hear girls say “I just want a normal great guy”
what exactly do they mean by this? Are there no great guys?
Girls want a guy who can walk through this world proud of
himself with his head held high, his shoulders back and his arms
forwards. Like he means what he says, and he knows where he’s
going.
The way I see it is that you should be the man, they wish their
fathers were more like; someone more respectable, more proud,
and go-getting.
This section has been here to emphasise how important it is to
learn to hold your own energy.
Don’t kill your own game.
Believe me, I’ve been there, I’ve misunderstood the stages and
steps described in this book. Or I’ve just felt like not following
the rules. And I got nowhere.
Keep the stages separate in your mind; Gain the attention of the
room, without alienating people by looking like your weird or
strange. Once you gain compliance off a agent, you exaggerate
the compliance without alerting her attention, or letting her
believe your weird or strange. This should be performed at a
pace that is calibrated to her.
The significance of REM, relaxation, and
sleep.
To do this game really well, you’re going to have to relax and
enjoy your own quality time with yourself. You’re resting hours,
because you’re going to have to show the girl that you’re talking
to how to access her ability to rest and enjoy herself outside the
frame of all the things she should and shouldn’t be doing. Learn
to love your own sleep, your resting time, and you can get to
find those who also are willing to enjoy time to rest, and relax,
and teach those that don’t know how to relax, how to copy you
and become more in tune with their deeper hormonal instincts.
It’s important to get a lot of sleep. Be aware of what time you’re
going to be most active and move your sleep patterns around to
match it, catch sleep when and where you can. How can you
expect to sleep with someone, if you don’t sleep? Surely that’s a
contradiction of terms, you need to find the time within yourself
to enjoy the moment with yourself and enjoy moments with
others. If she doesn’t have the Zen like relaxation and enjoyment
of the moment, then she isn’t going to experience REM and be
able to feel attraction before the close.
The reason I refer to REM is because of studies into it, one way
REM is actually identified to be occurring in a research
laboratory is guys will experience spontaneous erections while
they are going through the REM sleep cycle, girls experience
lubrication. This is why you notice morning glory at various
points in the morning, because you’ve woke up during an REM
cycle as opposed to a Deep sleep. Therefore one of the aims of a
seducer should be to ‘stay with’ a agent rather than necessarily
to ‘attract them’ because the moment you stay with a agent they
should experience the necessarily emotions that turn the lust into
attraction.
Being non-judgemental
Never push onto the world, let them pull into you. I never
hypnotize someone who isn’t ready for it, and therefore my
results can be very high as I’m only selecting agents who I expect
to succeed with because they are willing to pay attention to me,
rather than going out and intentionally pushing hypnosis onto
people like a dealer would push drugs, I wait for people to
become captivated by me, fascinated by my presence and then
have them engage in a process for a time being. The same goes
for seduction subjects, I suggest you pick agents not based on
your judgements about what’s attractive in the world, but based
on who you think will be good at engaging in the manner
required.
If you’re thinking about all of your limitations, all of the
preconceptions, all of your judgements on your own life, about
which girls are attractive, which ones aren’t, then you aren’t
going to get girls to be non-discriminative towards you. You can
have standards of what girl your aiming for, but don’t let your
wishes and hopes about tomorrow hold you back today. You’ve
got from now till forever to get that girl, let’s have some fun.
The importance of a healthy diet, exercise
resulting in blood vessel dilation, and
production of oxytocin & testosterone
You might notice that some nights all you want to do is go out
and meet some girl, not because you’ve read a book on picking
up girls and you want to practice your skills, but really because
your desperately horny, if any girl tried it on with you on these
nights you’d probably say yes regardless of how picky you are
usually.
Well the same goes for girls. On certain girls on certain nights
are horny and they would truly get with any guy who
approached them, whereas on other nights they really couldn’t
care less about any guy regardless of how good looking, etc.
speaks to them.
A lot of it has to do with how much attention they are truly
devoting to their internal feeling, a lot of it can be associated
with relaxation and how they aren’t relaxed because of various
stressors in their life, in the club etc. on that particular evening,
however also there are other forces at work.
You might notice, consecutively some girls are horny night after
night, constantly looking for new partners, whereas other girls
never ever would spend an evening with a stranger.
This comes down to exercise and your diet.
Being as it’s our duty to teach our subjects through leadership
about how to live our lives, then it’s our duty to get our bodies
in shape. By exercising you will increase your Testosterone
Levels, and after sleeping the levels of Oxytocin (also known as
the trust drug, or love drug) will be released as pheromones.
Which tend to cause girls to fall in love with you, although you’d
need to emit huge amounts in order for her to detect it, which is
not humanly possible, what is undoubt-able is that the
production of these chemicals and hormones is a natural part of
being a sexual human, and demonstrates to yourself that you are
an attractive individual.
Fruit and vegetables contain antioxidants, they somehow
magically (don’t ask me) get rid of fat in your body, thereby
making it easier for blood to flow around. Making your
breathing allow you to get more oxygen to your vital organs,
thereby increasing libido, intelligence, and reduce risk of heart
attacks, strokes etc.
Fatty foods are bad, somehow magically (don’t ask me how) fat
gets stored at the sides of your blood, less blood gets down the
vessels, and this means your heart has to beat faster to get more
oxygen which somehow magically converts into energy around
your body.
Your diet needs lots of different metals and minerals, which you
need to consume through various sources. The method I suggest
is just alternating your meats, Beef, Chicken, Fish (omega oils;
good for libido) and Eggs (protein). In addition to fruit and
vegetables, there are beans, lentils, and grasses that also contain
lots of chemicals you would otherwise never get to consume, for
me the most important vitamin I’m looking to get out of wheat
grasses is Vitamin B12 and some of the other B vitamins.
Caffeinated drinks, sugary drinks, carbohydrates like bread
should cause your blood vessels to constrict in the same way you
would do if you were stressed, thereby decreasing the
effectiveness of blood flow in encouraging oxygen round your
body to the vital organs.
Masturbation, is a quick way to kill your free testosterone levels.
The body of a healthy guy will naturally produce 4million
sperm a day. There are different recommendations, but many
medical associations consider a man to be at risk of being
infertile if he has less than 40milliion sperm.
Remember, sex has an evolutionary function. To procreate. Just
as women at certain times of the month will be ‘on heat’ because
they are most fertile during those times .You my friend are ‘on
heat’ between 7-10days after your last sexual, or self-sexual
encounter, you are most fertile, your libido will be at its highest,
and as a result you will have a good motivation for talking to,
and progressing women through the necessary stages described
in the book.
The psychological impact of pornography, or masturbation
according to many guys has left them dependent on themselves,
and learned to gain sexual satisfaction either only from
themselves or the internet, meaning many have experienced
conditioning that makes it difficult for them to enjoy sex with
real life women.
What I recommend is that you masturbate three times a month,
that’s once every ten days, as you will have 40 million sperm
ready inside of you by that point, and your libido, will increase.
It’s the production of sperm that’s heavily linked to testosterone
production. As your sperm count increases so will your
testosterone levels.
Not attracted to anyone?
I’ve been there. I’ve had long periods of my life where I truly
haven’t fancied anyone. We’ve covered some of the physical,
hormonal reasons as to why you might be experiencing a lack of
motivation to seduce girls.
There are other things that you could be making a mistake on.
As covered in the previous section, you might have conditioned
yourself to fancy a particular type of ‘look’ or prefer a certain
type of sexual act, and anything outside of those niches you can
find unattractive.
To get around this I recommend in addition to taking the steps
covered in the previous chapter, that you purposely remind
yourself while your interacting with a girl, what turns you on
about her, maybe it’s the way you touch her, maybe it’s getting
her to touch you. Maybe it’s when she smiles. Or something she
does. I recommend you focus on imagining those things that will
make you feel turned on about her, that way you will have more
motivation to progress the interaction further.
After doing this procedure a number of times you’ll eventually
find that your standards, open up, that your horizons become
broader and thus you will have a much more fulfilling sexual
existence.
The Science of Cuteness
In addition to attitudes, and health come actual procedures with
inner game. That is to say, it’s not just how you feel internally
but it’s also about how you convey to others that you feel like
this. Is there a way that you can force interest from people? Yes,
there is…. Be cute!
Cuteness is heavily investigated area of evolutionary
psychology. It invokes an evolutionary response to want to
nurture. Lust comes from the want to look after something. Our
early social learning and exchange of values is triggered by us
mimicking socially learned behaviours and associating traits.
But how do celebrities morph themselves into being claimed to
be uber attractive even when they don’t meet any of these
physical-infant like specifications?
To understand this we must understand how we can create the
concept of ‘being cute’ in our audiences minds, and through
doing this they visually distort their perception of the way you
look, lets call this infant-morphitism. There is simply too much
information to process upon meeting someone. And by bringing
certain features to become more familiar and therefore more
recognizable traits of a person, and leaving other features
unnoticed will distort the physical appearance of you to your
audience.
In order to create this perception of cute in the mind of our
audiences, we need them to notice our eyes regularly but
without allowing them to analyze this process. This will
naturally cause them to perceptionally enlarge the size of your
eyes in their visual mind. If we can arouse the evolutionary
protective mechanism in animals we can temporarily avoid
profit seeking motivations in our target and instead direct them
to engage in altruistic attitudes and behaviors.
By eliciting this ‘imprinting response’ as discovered by Lorenz
will cause these humans to want to work as a team. To promote
the survival of the group, by seeking utility together and
splitting the specialist tasks to achieve division of labor benefits.
Allso by them paying attention to your face & head it should
grow in respect to your body. This will give the apparent look of
your head being much larger than your body, therefrore making
you look much more like a baby and thus cute.
In order to achieve this visual illusion in the mind of our
audiences we must misdirect the attention onto a guise that
allows us the opportunity to create eye contact, staring at the lips
etc. without arousing suspicion that you have ill intent and that
being the reason for you to encourage this process.
In our body language and the way we express emotions can also
be cute, you can become a cute person. Adults tend to become
dramatically more cynical and sceptical the older they get. They
lose the magic. They only display emotionally swings briefly,
and perhaps lack the intense giggle or estactic smile that you will
find in a baby when you tickle it or wiggle its nose or lips.
Infants can be noticed to easily mimick your body language,
once you make them laugh or smile (perhaps because your
happy) they will keep the enthuasim and express an intensity of
emotion that we as adults may often find difficult.
Infants, particularly your own offspring, are hyper sensitive to
your body language cues. They learn from every little gesture
you make, every flicker of emotion on your face and the verbal
language, and behaviors that causally run along side these
signals. If you pull a happy face to a baby it smiles and laughs
back, then if you pull a sad face, perhaps it burst out crying
hysterically and Is difficult to calm down.
Has it never been considered that the dubbed psychological
hysteria that women were diagnosed by their rich and successful
husbands was not down to a medical condition or even sexual
prejudice but instead actually a realistically diagnosis based
upon the fact that wealthy high society in Victorian Britain
would often wed with girls significantly younger than them who
may be still displaying infant like signs that have continued into
their teenage lives.
You want to be as responsive, as hysterical as this diagnosis. Not
in a negative way, but to be reactive emotionally to those around
you. When a good thing is happening to display big happy smile
and to be happy for an unreasonable amount of time, 45 seconds
plus. And when something unhappy happens, to be sad for
beyond 45 seconds also.. People naturally fancy people who
respond to them, and by you responding to your audience, they
will grow warm to you. There are a range of behaviors that have
been categorized into the evolutionary definition of cuteness.
These are infantile personality traits, such as; playfulness,
fragility, helplessness, curiosity, innocence, affectionate
behavior, and a need to be nurtured are also generally
considered cute. If you can be this emotionally expressive and
responsive to your audience, they will perceive you as likeable
individual who they want to build a strong relationship with.
The look people give you in order to force you to perceive them
as cute, for example making direct eye contact and smiling, is
same look of responsiveness of fascination, of picking up every
tiny body language cue that you put out that advanced
hypnotists, persuaders and seduction experts notice in their
audiences, and suddenly they pounce on that subject. But may I
suggest that by being cute, by being cool and interesting you
actually cause people to build up their own responsiveness
towards you and therefore turn them hypersensitive to your
cues. That is to say they pick up ‘social learning’ from you.
By creating this perception of cute, and then bringing out the
responsiveness and cuteness of our audiences in return, we can
take advantage of their natural human instinct while directing
their team spirit onto the utility quest paths that we want them
to engage in, doing this using gentle leadership.
Do I believe in attraction. No, I think attraction is like a
frustration of not getting something you want. But in order to
get to the position of attraction you need to lose something you
wanted.
Creating a want is like writing surrealistic poetry. All wants Start
only with just a flicker of attention, just the fact that someone is
looking at you or listening to you, or standing near you. It then
becomes this progression, that you are now talking to them and
they are listening paying interest when they could easily just
walk away. Before someone is attracted to you, they must have a
sense that they ‘had you’ and then ‘lost you’.
This means that you progressed from interest into an ‘emotional
investment’ where someone values the potential loss that they
could experience, the more you invest the more you care to
protect your investment. So this might mean that she is holding
onto you, she has your phone number, she’s called and texted
you. You kissed. And suddenly she feels like she might be losing
you.
Never be afraid to be open and honest about everything,
providing you reframe it in a positive light and make yourself
out to be a fun person. Remember large swings of emotion with
big expressions comes across really cute. Infants are naïve. And
by acting like your naïve and you believe in concepts like 'love at
first sight' and trust people. Then your likely to be seen as a 'cute
person'
The reality is that being intelligent, or important, or serious or a
hard worker doesn't attract anyone, as much as we might hope
that our efforts in becoming good at something, or becoming
wealthy will attract. It doesn’t it’s the benefits it creates that
attracts, everything comes down to how well you can judge the
responsiveness of those your speaking to, and how well you can
turn people who aren’t ‘into your social learning world’ into it.
How can you make girls and guys hypersensitive to every look,
gesture, and instruction that you offer? Cute is clearly a part of
this.
There is evidence to believe that this process of imprinting
continues into later life. For example other studies have shown
that when high levels of this imprinting bonding hormone
(Oxytocin) exists as a pheromone between potential mates, they
are likely to go on to form a relationship.
Consequently, it’s likely that imprinting, and the exchange of
socially learned behaviors occur between individuals who seem
to offer the economically based cost-benefit reward of for
example, safety, or aid in achieving goal pursuits, or are just the
easiest choice.
In addition to these ways in which we can form relationships or
responsiveness with complete strangers, the science of the
imprinting response shows that we can hijack this automatic
response using several tricks that have been left as evolutionary
templates in most mammals. These are Touch, Eye contact,
Sharing of information amongst others described throughout
this book. By creating a small agreement of fascination from an
individual, we can quickly develop this into a imprinting style
hyper sensitivity to mimic our behaviors and be hyper
responsive to our suggestions.
So I regularly point out that there is no strict attraction state, that
there is no such thing as necessarily as a spontaneous “I see you
and I’m attracted” there is things that trigger such a response
and one of those things is cuteness. Babies, kittens, heads with
massive eyes, and faces that are smiling, and happy, we can
easily relate to, we instantly think ‘I want to look after that
thing’, ‘I want to nurture that thing’ and that nurturing response,
that wanting to own something could be described as the ‘only
spontaneous instant attraction you can have’ but I guess if
everyone in the world was doing that we would be back to this
perfectly competitive situation anyway and then you’d need to
consider all the other points that we cover throughout this
section, you wouldn’t have a monopoly if that happened.
The reality is, we are all hardwired conditioned to respond to
certain cues to nurture etc. so it doesn't even matter, you want to
cuddle a five year old, you want a pet kitten, its hardwired.
Do I see inner game or natural game as important? How can you
force interest from people? Is there an ultimate cheat as to
getting people to like you?
Be cute. Cuteness is heavily investigated area of evolutionary
psychology. It invokes an evolutionary response to want to
nurture. Lust comes from the want to look after something.
Our early social learning and exchange of values is triggered by
us mimicking socially learned behaviours and associating traits.
Leaving Assumptions Behind
Assumptions & Associations: What motivates people?
We are here to finally conclude Sexual Capitalism - The aim of
the book was to discover the motivations of Men and His
Market, and to work out how to create a code that will allow us
to become more dominant in this competitive environment.
I’d like to open the final chapter on the following quote;
“Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of
creative effort. “
- Roosevelt
We are going to conclude with alot of information about
happiness in the final chapter and how this is an important way
of assessing the stucture of the person we are speaking to.
Happiness, and the places we associate it. Quickly consume and
take over our mind, for me - the way I finally acquired success in
my life was by becoming as boring as possible - so boring in fact
that I only had one thing left in my life left - I lost everything
purposely so that I would purely only be able to find happiness
by achieving through creative effort experiencing the flow.
This is the number one way that you can achieve happiness in
your life, by letting go of the wants, the jealously the needs of the
future, what you think you should be doing in your life and
instead focusing just on your creative ability within the present
moment, without judgements of whether what you are creating
is your best possible work, or whether what you are doing is the
right thing, and instead just doing as much output as you
possibly can to the best of your resources available.
What we will discover throughout the following chapter is how
peoples attention really moves towards their sense of happiness,
and how often this feeling of happiness is used to control people.
For example if you look at England it has a drinking problem, as
does america and many other countries where people really do
gain alot of joy out of drinking, but with it comes such a great
deal of suffering, the misallocation of resources, the time
consumption on something that isn’t actually going towards
their creative process and the damage to their health and IQ.
Unfortunately many have tried to manipulate our values and
sense of happiness by showing us symbols of success, and
symbols of what things should make us feel comfortable, these
things’ draw our attention, the reality is, that if you leave a
monkey in a cage where it has either the option to consume
cocaine or eat food, it will choose the cocaine over food, and
unfortunately this need for dopamine regularly tickles the
human race.
Take a look at the example of sugar, people seem to act as if it
increases their sense of being ‘more awake’ one of the core
human desires that you regularly see people try to achieve by
consuming, but this need to rely on an external source - to
balance oneself is a bit unnecessarily especially one that really
does throw the entire health of the immunology of the human
entirely out of balance for a three hour period as does sugar or
cafffine.
However it seems people are happy to take these risks to their
own health - for a brief moment of enjoyment, that if related
regularly could cost them a lifetime of wasted energy and
pursuits into goals that only felt good because of the brief
dopamine rush caused by sugar or caffeine overload and not
because it was the thing that was right for the person to be doing
with the abilities and attention at that moment in time.
I believe throughout this book we have uncovered many secrets
of persuasion. But what we will discover in this final chapter is
that by playing with this eb and flow between the extremes of
‘being wired - paying attention ’ vs ‘Being peaceful - thinking
laterally & creatively’ are greatly affected by peoples
relationship with time, space, independence, - governed by the
very nature of object relations and economics outlined from the
start of the book in Man and His Introduction.
What we will see is the the happiness chip within someones
head fortunately or unfortunately is easily tinkered with and
people are regularly playing with your sense of happiness and
quickly this can either put you into a position of strength and
power - or it can turn you into a weak, helpless person who is
constantly self destructing and destroying everything good in
their life.
We will also reveal that there is a secret on how to dominate the
attention of others, by controlling their happiness by realigning
their goals, using their peaceful resourceful creative state, their
ability to dream about what they want in the future, and commit
them to being helpless and rely on you in the present by
suddenly experiencing a dopamine rush and an adrenal lock-
down.
I consider this method the perfect abstract sense of the idealized
sequence that has taken a great deal of time to come up with -
although I write this section after a long break from Sexual
Capitalism - Sexual capitalism has been a work in progress for
over three years, and purposely in order to make sure that the
different sections of the book weren’t too similar, I tried to have
breaks before writing each individual chapter.
So although I might write every chapter and mention how
important this chapter is, I want you to bare in mind how
significant I believe the chapters on Humour, onemanupship,
and the philosophy of a man are to the information present in
this chapter here.
Quickly I want to reliterate some of the most important tips
when talking to new people, and how to actually make sure you
are making an impact
i) Slow down time - make the person you are speaking to feel
special, give them your undivided attention, this is a very weird
feeling for most people as honestly usually people are really just
thinking about all kinds of things when they communicate, just
hold the moment.
ii) Hold your sense of self, and what your trying to achieve as
paramount, invite others into your world but only if they are
able to actually work.
Let’s think back to the work of Socrates - and how we opened
the book with a story about whether Socrates is indeed the
wisest of all men.
We almost implied or outright said that. It was Socrates ability to
doubt absolutely, whereas other men trusted their own
judgements that allowed Socrates to instantly see the flaws in
almost any logical induction or deduction by man, where others
would be easily fooled and blinded by their ‘smartness’.
This dominant position of knowing - ‘one pure truth’ - for
absolute certain is something that we endorse, and by you
following the progress of your creative output and holding your
flow as paramount as per described in the Roosevelt quote at the
beginning of this chapter. Then consider this your protection
from evil, and your ability to control any situation you
encounter. This is that little precious seven pounds of soul that
you have, and if you cling onto that - you’ll be stronger than
anyone you encounter and you will be admired for it.
Most people walk around aimlessly, they don't have a plan, the
moment you become hyper-focused on what your aiming to
achieve, to be honest everyone around you just wants to get
involved - they might have all kinds of reasons for wanting to be
involved with you - they might need the money and from you
being efficient you happen to be producing some, they might
think that you are a fun and enjoyable person and they find that
by spending time with you they are somewhat becoming more
interesting themselves.
They might find that by you being ultra focused- laser focused
seems to make some solid impact over their own lives. Think
back to the story that I mentioned - perhaps it was earlier in this
book or in another where a friend asked me why I believe that
'Single dads with kids seem to get all the women' - and that the
reason I suggested was because the guys seemed consistent in
their approach, what they were doing might not be indications
of success - like these guys might not drive a Porsche, they might
not own a football club but what they are doing is producing
consistent output - towards a goal, and doing the everyday
bitesize chunks to get there.
So even though what they are currently doing - isn't showing
clear indications of success. What they are engaging in is the
actual steps that it takes to be successful, what they are doing is
focusing on the process - in the step by step day by day what
they can do to make the most positive and powerful outcome of
that individual moment.
When I was young, I seemed to have quite a lot of success in
several aspects of my life. and for years I was constantly
questioning why exactly that was - one thing I couldn't
understand - was that I was working jobs that honestly I didn't
really like, I really wanted to quit and become a hypnotist. I had
zero free time what so ever. So what would happen would be
that I would wake up about 6.30am and I would go to the Gym.
I would work out as hard as I possibly could only to go School at
9 am. And then I would be at school till perhaps 4pm in the
Afternoon, I might quickly rush home and do some homework
before starting work usually at 6pm.
Then I would work till about 11.30pm finish, and then because I
felt like the entire day hadn't amounted to anything I would hit
the nightclubs where I would attempt to pick up girls.
I would mentally select who I believed were the top 15 girls that
I would happily get with in the club. ( I didn't think too much
about my standards, I thought simply about which girls I
thought would be fun to get with rather than focusing on being a
perfectionist - like my idealised type, in several places in the
book we talk about the flaws of being a perfectionist and this is
another example that one could easily make.).
I would select which girls I thought were the top 12 that I would
actually likely to stand a chance with out of those 15, so I would
aim to eliminate three girls from the list who for whatever
reason I didn't think were a good opportunity to approach.
And then the rest I would do the exact same strategy, I would
see them across the room, I would seem like my whole world lit
up the moment I made eye contact with them, and then I would
look away like I was just 'happy in general' and then I would
wait 4 seconds and then I would look back to see if they were
looking - then I would imply the words "hey" or I would go to
wave "as if i knew the girl already" but then seem to not
complete the wave, or the hi, because I was merely responding
to the girl as if she was some kind of ex girlfriend that I hadn't
seen in a long time, that I somehow had secret feelings for - but
would never realize myself.
Anyway, my aim would be for about a 40% success rate, I would
see which girls smiled back, and then aim to accidently bump
into her in person - and literally bump into her accidently as in
actually bump her, touch her or better still - have her touch me
accidently sometime within the next two minutes. (this time
frame was important).
Now bare in mind I was tired, I had to be awake in only 3 hours
to do my gym work - and I would do this sequence of closing at
three key times in the evening 11.45 (early) - people who go to a
store first thing in the morning - are going to buy - most sales in
shops and in car showrooms happen in the morning - and the
people who come in the afternoon are the browsers, then quickly
before the end of the day sometimes you get people who rush in
to make a purchase but often these people will use the time
delay as an excuse to buy the purchase tomorrow - however in
the world of nightclubs there might not be tomorrow with that
person - although that might not necessarily matter because if
her goal is to 'meet a boy' then realistically underneath it all,
really any boy will be sufficient.
Anyway, the point being, I was knackered. I didn't have a bit of
energy left in me. I looked Exhausted. I hated my life. But I really
was getting laid 50% of the time's that I went out - Bizzare right
There is nothing more sexy than someone who is 'on a mission'.
Just think 'James Bond' if you have a goal and you are pursing it,
it really doesn't matter how knackered you look.
Knowing what you want isn't great because it communicates
dominance, it's that people don't really know what they want
and buy having someone who is laser focused is an attractive
thing because it gives the person who is speaking to them focus,
direction, something to do, somewhere to go, it suddenly makes
them know exactly what they need to do. It stops all the lack of
confidence.
You need to think like this - there is pretty much just three
people in life - people who hate their lives - people who don't
know what they want and self actualized people.
The way to quickly recognize which one of the three roles the
person your speaking to is you need to ask yourself the question
"would I hire the person I'm speaking to?", "If I lent the person
I'm speaking to money would they go out and achieve their
goals or would they just frit it away", "if the person I'm speaking
to offered to help me on a project - am I having them help me
because I need them to complete my project because I feel
helpless. Or, is it because they are really organised and focused
and they can complete tasks and complete promises".
If the person you're speaking to isn't that focused person then
they need you to take leadership and control, the best way to do
this isn't by being egotistical, it has nothing to do with ego, its
just about you being on your pursuit and using the tiny inch of
opportunity that life gives you and makes the most of it.
Yesterday a girl who is a Lesbian - broke up with her girlfriend
(who also is gorgeous) because she said that she was in Love
with me because she believed that I was going to be massively
successful. Now you could argue that the reason she wants me is
because of money, but it really isn't about that. It's that being
focused, being driven rather than actually just claiming your
going to do something but actually taking the second by second
moment by moment most important tasks and seeking out the
positives in every opportunity around you makes you seem
great.
Girls, want you to close them!
That's the cold fact. They want you to sales them into sex. The
same way that if you're a salesman not many people are going to
make a purchase just because the product is great. There are two
things that need to be in place i) they need to think you are
charming/cheeky ii) you need to pressure close them, and lead
them into an uncomfortable situation but make them feel good
and excited about being their - usually by making them feel
special or massaging their ego.
Anyway, so what I decided when I was young was that there
were so many great girls - that all I wanted to do was have the
free time to actually spend more time with them and actually
enjoy myself - but guess? the moment I stopped working on
making the most of every second of my day - going to the gym,
getting straight A's at school, and working to earn money - is the
same moment that suddenly know girls were interested in me.
It's like me - looking fully well dressed, not tired/knackered
exhausted actually made me less attractive - Bizarre right?
Tip 1: Being a nice guy will destroy your life.
I want to take this moment to quickly reference Ross Jeffries and
mention how much I think he is an absolute genius compared to
the majority of pick up approaches you will ever discover out
there on the market.
I'm just going to quote some of his words for a moment and
briefly mention why I think this is so significant.
Ross Jeffries States to a girl; “I’m NOT “nice”. [pause] To be nice
is to be weak. I’m [pause]… “Pleasing”. “Pleasing” is power…
held in proper restraint… and exercised with precision. [Lock
eyes and touch anchor] Can you feel that? Can you feel the
difference?” (date accessed 29/08/2012: seduction.com)
See many people from the pick up artist community who are
trying to interpret and judge the Ross Jeffries quote will
inaccurately describe it as a quote that's illustrating the
importance of social dominance - they might claim that - 'a man's
job is to be an alpha male and communicate to women that he is
the leader of the pack'.
However this isn't how I believe Ross Jeffries would explain his
words, and it's not my experience of what the words above mean
either. The reason for the significance of the words isn't to
demonstrate dominance, it's to communicate that he is only
pleasing to the point where it benefits both him and her in a kind
of equilibrium, its a kind of honesty to not waste her time, and to
best allocate his resources to help her.
What you need to understand is what took me a long time to
understand myself. See I've always seen myself as a kind of
caring person - I thought that I was one of a few rare breeds of
altruistic people (I used to believe that nonsense) now when I
hear someone else describe themselves as altruistic I laugh.
See I knew full well that Adam Smith in his early works on
Philosophy and the origins of wealth discussed that it's
impossible for humans to be altruistic, but I think it took me a
long time to understand what that meant.
The best way that you can be a good person in life, isn't by trying
to be a good person, it's by being the best you that you can
possibly be.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear
is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our
darkness that most frightens us... Your playing small does not
serve the world.”
She continues; “…There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all
meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest
the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's
in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As
we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically
liberates others.” - Marianne Williamson
Everyone has heard the above quote, but I don't know if others
truly know what it means - take the example of money (sorry
that I keep on using that example) but suppose I go out for a
night out with my sister and one of my best friends to a different
city and this costs me a total of 50 pounds? Sounds like nothing
right? I mean it's only 50 pounds what difference does that
make.
It makes a hell of a lot of difference if it's not actually the best
way to help people - if I'm seeing my sister and my friends
because I think it benefits their lives to do so, then I need to
question whats the best possible way I can help others.
Would it be better that I went out for a night out with them, and
probably had a night that none of us remember, or would it
serve me and them better if I spent the evening working, and
then happened to move into my sisters place temporarily to help
them out on paying off their mortgage, that 50 pounds could be
better spent spending a week at their place, helping them receive
an extra 50 quid, while I work on my projects, and I get to see
them over the course of a week - rather than just a single night
out where we are spent in a noisy room and can't really talk
about anything significant.
Not only that but if I spent that time solidly focusing on my
projects and goals - it's likely that I would have made further
money that would have delivered me more opportunities in the
future, that would have allowed me to allocate my resources
even further.
Sorry to sound like i'm going all religious on you - but I would
go as far to say as that if there is a God, he wants the best for you
- and that means for you. You are a person who by focusing on
himself is better able to allocate the right equipment to others.
Wealth could be defined as the ability to allocate the correct and
appropriate type of resources for the situation that they are
trying to turn into a more valuable one. By doing this you
become a more - idealised version of man - some kind of 'true
man'.
People are basically controlled by their desire to seek more value
in life. If you are talking to a person and you're not looking to
make some kind of exchange with them not only are you
wasting your own time but you are wasting there's also, people
can feel this intention, and if you don't know why you are
speaking to someone then the person will also be questioning
why you don't seem to know what you want in your life.
There are lots of unintelligent people out there, and it's easy to
fall into the same traps as they fall into that trap them into that
position. What you need to do is rise to the position where you
are completely and independently focused on the differences
you can make, how you allocate your time, without fear of
failure, worries about the past, or desire to be perfect in the
future - focusing merely on the opportunities - (forgive the
phrasing) that God places right in front of your eyes.
How can we make people make decisions for us?
Right let's give some more focus on how we can hypnotize
people, or how we can make people who are motivated to pay
attention to us and listen to us perfectly.
I want to focus on a story where I was doing magic on a girl in a
bar - she was completely unresponsive and honestly there was
nothing that I would be able to do with a target like that.
People tend to learn how to switch off to the world - they
become immune to their environment and they stop learning -
their environment falls too plainly and fits in too nicely into the
boxes (judgement boxes) that they have that they become
incapable of realizing the opportunities right in front of their
eyes.
These people are impossible to hypnotize because everytime you
suggest something - every time you mention a field of learning
or study - they think that you are talking about something else
and thus are unable to hear you - for example if I try telling a girl
about quantum physics in a nightclub she might incorrectly
believe that what i'm trying to do is show off that I'm intelligent
and thus that judgement means that she focuses on that and thus
is unable to hear the actual learnings that I'm attempting to
deliver.
This is ridiculously common. It actually happens nearly every
time you speak to someone, but you might not notice that it's
occurring Honestly I'm going to tell you this tip, and I know
you might not be listening because you think i'm talking from
my ego, this is something that I haven't said before because I
think you might think its weird - dude.... one of the reasons that
I am so persuasive is that I'm weird as anything. I say the most
unpredictable things, the most unusual things, it's like I've
purposely trained myself to speak in riddles and rhymes -
people hear me say things that 'shock' most of the jokes that I tell
are 'shock' I say things that you would never expect to hear
someone to say, and when I act like that... guess what everyone
is awake and listening to me with wide open eyes - it’s
unpredictable they can’t contextualize it.
During university if you asked me why I had such success as a
hypnotist I would tell you that the reason I was experiencing
great results was because “I pretended to be everyone's
imaginary friend" that's such a weird thing to say, but what I
would do is make the assumption that the person I'm speaking
to has no contact with the real world - that they actually are
experiencing something called philosophical solipsism.
What I would do is pace and lead their sense of philosophical
solipsism, and actually speak to them as if I am their imaginary
friend and I know everything about them, I do this simply by
reflecting back their statements but to do this in the way that you
learn in counselling or psychotherapy study wouldn't be enough
as it would be too obvious, you need to actually assume their is
logic tree's to what the person you're speaking to is thinking and
actually use these trees to further unpick their understanding.
People are predictable
What motivates people…? Well for sure, we all believe that we
are capable of making decisions, and our decisions we accept are
usually designed to cause us to take up opportunities and be
attracted to information that furthers our chance to exist.
This makes peoples thoughts pretty predictable as you know
that all they are trying to do is find a better way to exist, the
thing is the better way to exist doesn't exist within the
opportunities that they currently have available to them, their
opportunities lie in the information they already have but they
can't see the gaps in between what they know because they are
too focused on the judgements, and short sighted perceptions
that they have that promote quick-snap judgements of their
environment that stop them seeing the full picture - the places
they want to be if only they could.
“There is little chance of learning because the learning and
interpretations are internally self consistent. They are wrong, but
wrong in ways that do not easily reveal themselves”
There often is a trade off in the things you want, but you tend to
fall back into the habits that you've built consistently.
See, I can do magic, and I can do hypnosis. and I can go to bars
and try and get gigs there. the problem is I also know how to get
traffic on the internet, I'm quite capable of thinking and writing
down my thoughts in book format, producing audio's.
And I also often too much want to just have people listen to me,
and unfortunately that focus means that often I resort to those
resources that I seem to habitually fall into - I use them to find
the resources I need in my life - I use them to help my love life,
my relationships, my money. Whereas other people with
different areas of habit might use other options - hypnotherapy
clients, etc.
For me it's far easier to fly to another country on a last minute
flight, get a visa while on the aeroplane, and get a hotel while I
arrive to not sleep for four days to teach a hypnosis course in a
city I know nothing about, spending a currency that I don't
know how much is worth. I find that easy, so I rely on it.
Whereas when it comes to attending networking meetings, or
going round local gyms, or getting to know the doctors in the
local city to have them do patient referrals for a hypnotherapy
clinic, that is uncomfortable? It's not something I really want to
do. It's not something I would easily know where to begin to
start doing, I mean here I'm here writing and describing the
steps to take in order to do it, but it's something I'm immune to
getting excited about doing - because I'm too busy emotionally
distracted by what somehow has stolen my focus... (see future-
pace, bait & switch - something that we talk about later in the
text).
How can you wake people up from their
zombie slumber? - Kill The Mundane And
Create Energetic Interactions.
How to make everything you say seem amazing! How to
become an amazingly interesting person and make life
enjoyable. Most people are walking around like mindless
zombies! Why you need to change? and Make others change
with you.
Your risk-reward chip kind of most the time is just completely
switched off, people are walking around as zombies asleep, and
its only until imminent death is about to occur, or a freaking
amazing opportunity, like a naked girl jumps into your bed that
suddenly you're like “wow, I’m actually alive, this is all real,
and I feel at peace with the universe”.
You need to look at the 38 hypnosis step approach that we
outline in the online hypnosis training course
http://www.streethypnotism.com , you will find fragments of it
explained in this section. The model roughly goes that you need
to relax people when you first meet them, usually this means
that you approach them in a way that is non-threatening and
doesn't arouse suspicion.
You come in under the radar, and you attempt to make the
person you're speaking to feel really peaceful. The reason why
you want them to feel peaceful is so you can have the think
really laterally and creatively, because you're going to want
them not to start using their judgements in order to
contextualize the world.
We hypothesis a theory of how people have two polar opposites
and how these are significant to emotions and attention,
attention is governed by the need to seek opportunity, but
attention will not be allocated towards opportunity if a person is
consolidating their risk.
You should make the assumption that nearly anyone you speak
to is actually consolidating their risks in life - they are basically
maintaining the resources they have and making those resources
their central focus. This means having the friends that they are
used to, working the same job that they are used to using.
Honestly I feel like if someone isn't expanding what they are
trying to achieve then I believe their body will begin to start
shutting down the same way a leg falls off if it doesn't receive
any blood flow, I feel that people's cells in their body won't
properly duplicate unless they are constantly maintaining that
little bit of hope - that little bit of domination of their own sense
to make an impact on the world.
When we opened the book with the "introduction to man"
chapter what our focus was on, was what makes a man feel
powerful where does our true sense of 'sexiness' come from -
what makes us actually feel that we are independent in ourlives
and where does our inner sense of 'ego' come from.
See I want to go back to a point that I have touched upon alot,
but I haven't outright said - maybe as explicitly as I need to say-
basically it's that - without an ego you really can't be taken
seriously.
You need to be the kind of person who stands up and fights for
something in your life, as it really means that you're not taking a
unique strategy and don't actually stand out compared with
your competitors, one of the main premises of the sexual
capitalism model was the idea that - social environments are
perfectly competitive as they contain infinite number of
competitors who are profit seekers who quickly dive in and out
of the market every time their is a surplus opportunity to take
and the moment that this opportunity arises then it is
immediately reallocated and divided amongst an infinite
number of competitors and thus divided down to be zero - as in
worthless.
I had a friend who I had known for years - she didn't see like she
would ever be able to be hypnotized by me, a number of times I
gave it a shot and began attempting to hypnotize her and
nothing at all significant began to happen - with her the entire
interaction was never significant as we spent nearly every day
together it was hard to make any individual moment really
stand out.
One day she was only in her knickers and bra, so I pulled her off
the bed and onto the floor, and then began to speak weirdly and
began to hypnotize her, it was like an absolute dream, suddenly
she followed every instruction as if by magic without doing any
particularly obvious hypnosis approach.
The same goes for a girl the other day who I met in a club, I was
in an Unique circumstance, I said to her that she could come
back and stay and that I would show her my books on hypnosis.
She decided to come back and then claimed that she found all
this very interesting, I hypnotized her while in bed with her, and
while simply just using a handful of words and made it look
absolutely magical, it was really me just being positive and
enthusiastic and opening her eyes up to a new side of life that is
always there were she could be bright eyed and fluffy tailed and
see how everyday experiences can be opening and revealing
events that uncover more about the creativeness within
ourselves of these artistic moments as we interact with colors,
time, and space and be and flow from moment to moment.
A hypnotists goal should be to play with these elements....
however unfortunately the books you can purchase on hypnosis
seem unable to illustrate and explain about these moments, you
buy books that are full of old fashioned techniques, that give you
step by steps - but every rule that can be made, can be broken as
many times as the cases it actually works for. The rules
themselves aren't the approach its about the governing
psychology which unfortunately can take a lifetime to learn and
hence why I need to explain through various little titbits that
bring the entire approach together.
So let's give another example of how you can wake people up
from their zombie slumber and later throughout this section we
will go more through the step by step model explaining the 38
approach that we've been using in our hypnosis for the past year
or so.
One night I was doing magic in a bar - and two girls came over
giving me a bit of a attitude and said "hey show us a trick then"
these girls seemed like they were somehow saying that with a bit
of ego, like they were just using this moment to somehow gain
some attention out of a stranger - perhaps they wanted to be
made to feel pretty because they didn't feel 'hot enough' or
maybe its just because part of their evening is all about 'making
themselves stand out' so the rest of the week they can spend
earning and being boring so they can just have that one night a
week where their ego is built up.
Their way, I knew their set up was designed to make me some
kind of 'entertainer' some kind of pleasure giver tool for them for
which they could just 'rip off' and use the energy I put out there
for their own benefit without giving anything back because I
didn't communicate any strength, any 'get up and go' in my own
life, I didn't display qualities of making stuff happen and
focusing on my selfish desires and making everything I touched
into the gold, using what was around me to demonstrate my
'overcoming' my winning over nature, the dominance of my
surroundings and the ownership of her through the true
ownership of myself by expressing a single elegant truth - like
Socrates expressing "I know that I know nothing" the simple
ability to know a truth, can divide everything anyone else says
surrounding him into incomprehensible pieces that no longer
make any sense and make him the greatest philosopher or
inquirer of all because he is able to cut through all the BS and
find actually what the underpinnings of someone's philosophic
logic is in any discussion.
So in order to communicate a social set-up that would be more
beneficial to myself, I said to the two girls "I'm not performing
anymore tonight".
What I did then was I went up to another girl who I caught the
eye of, and did a magic trick on her - as if it was all an accident,
knowing that what I would do is actually make the girls jealous.
I know it worked perfectly as the hot girls interrupted and said
“I thought you weren't performing any more tonight” I ignored
them and continued.
The moment after I finished the trick, I turned to one of the hot
girls and said “You can't remember your name, its gone” I asked
her for her name and she said “I can't remember” I said to her
“You know when you feel like you've known someone your
whole entire life, like a secret crush, that you want to tell all of
your friends about once you finally kiss them”.
She took me over onto the dance floor and we kissed. For weeks
after I had girls coming up to me announcing that their friend
loves me! Apparently she had been telling almost everyone from
her village about how I was the best guy ever, but that I was too
good for her. I’m fairly certain this would have not been her
opinion of me prior to this elaborate use of language and social
dynamics.
You Can’t Influence the brain dead.
So when you walk up to someone to influence, they are not
listening.. they are asleep… they are a zombie… they don’t have
that central command in the brain running, unless of course
you're talking to an artist, a creative, a drug-user, or perhaps
someone who for some random reason alcohol still actually
produces a buzz for, perhaps because they have barely left the
house in their life… and this is their first night out!
Therefore I propose a solution.. to wake people up!
Why don’t you just take crazy people on roller coasters?
Excitement, causes your heart to beat fast! The intense emotion
investment that this creates has been studied by researchers. In
one study psychologists Cindy Meston, and Penny Frohlich
(2003) decided to find out, they visited to large theme parks, and
waited near roller coasters armed with photographers of average
looking men and women. They had them evaluate the
attractiveness of these photos before and after going on the roller
coaster. Afterwards participants rated the photos significantly
more attractive! Wiseman (2009:171)
It’s a weird question right… but sometimes don’t you think that
life has lost that spark… either your depressed because its all just
a bit repetitive and dull… or you have an overactive mind
because you seem to be focusing on the wrong things, and
giving weight and emotion to unimportant situations… trauma’s
in the past, or angry thoughts.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could reset your emotions, and
suddenly be free again?
According to associative learning in Psychology, it seems that
people attach emotions to the situations they experience them in.
These emotions look like they get ‘tied in’ and you end up
having those emotions purely set to the situation you gave
attention to. According to the Gestalt Theory of Psychotherapy
when that attention never gets used – like suppose you're angry
with someone but you never actually tell them. Then what
happens is ‘a part of your personality’ is reserved – that segment
of energy is stored away.
I figured that Roller Coasters are a really good way of taking you
through the up and downs of emotions without being in a
situation that is overly traumatic or harmful, no long term effects
should occur from going on a fast ride. Just purely the feeling of
having your adrenaline levels raised up.
By learning the feelings of your emotional levels, moving and
changing allows you to be better understand your cognitive self.
The states you move through, throughout time, and this will
help you learn emotional intelligence..
Soon you begin to realize that many of your thoughts – and
memory are actually tied into different experiences. For example
in Architecture they study how ‘spaces’, ‘places’, ‘rooms’ are
journeys of discovery.
That when you move through a building, space or maze… its not
the maze your uncovering, its actually yourself. Because your
emotions, mood, the sort of conversations you have- change
with every space and situation you encounter causes a reaction.
Through the connection of these ‘spaces’ - i.e. by walking -
causes stories/dialogues within the person - as their ‘way’ flows
from one moment to the next.
The failure of the persuader, is to believe that the personality of
the person you're speaking to, is stable. That it is a solid unit,
that a belief that they have is actually fully formed. When you
actually speak to people and listen to the underlying philosophy
of the things they say, often you find that people are constantly
quoting films, scripts and lines from TV programs, they have
ideas about how business is to be conducted from the major
companies competing for advertising space in their head at the
time, and they generate their sense of morality from whether
they are being a good person comparatively to their friends.
All this stress isn’t related to the experience with oneself. Hold
yourself, and feel like someone you’d respect.
There is a well known study, where participants who went on a
rollercoaster were asked to rate the attractiveness of portraits in
photograph’s both before they went on the roller coaster and
afterwards.
These post-roller coaster riders rated the portraits extremely
attractive – purely because they had rode the coaster and it
raised their emotions.
The reason for this is, the central command of a person is
directly brought online when heart rate and cardiac output
increases, blood pressure is shown to either stay the same or
actually drop, this is why you get just as much access to your
internal creative abilities, because the blood flow - i.e. Oxygen -
in your brain still touches all the areas and doesn’t consolidate to
just doing the minimal essential tasks, but this process of
investing into activities, having the attention to quickly switch is
brought on by the increased cardiovascular response.
The people who are falling in love with the photographs they
look at, after they’ve had their emotions heightened by the
rollercoaster aren’t evaluating the personality traits of the photo
they are looking at when they describe them as “Cute”,
“Perfect”, “A nice guy” they are describing their re-discovered
soul of themselves, and projecting this optimism and hope about
society onto the photograph.
“Being highly hypnotizable is the cutest thing in the world!”
When you see someone who is highly emotionally responsive
and open, with big eyes! You can’t help but fall in love.
The only two things to have been shown in history to affect
hypnotisability have been increased emotional responsiveness,
which has been shown in studies where they have done
hypnotic tests on participants while they are consuming
laughing gas, and imaginativeness assessments, having a highly
creative personality for example drama students, art students, all
having higher hypnotisable-ness.
I’ve found the same results attending parties within the cultural
world, I’ve travelled a lot around the world and I’ve mainly
hanged out with, (being as I was self employed teaching
hypnosis) with other people who are either self employed artists
(or out of work ones).
This is one of the reasons why I have had significant practice and
success as a hypnotist and one of the reasons for my huge
confidence, these subjects are not representative, but by taking
their attitude to life… by making people become creative in their
attitude and their approach to the new situation you put them
in, then you are directly getting the exact responses I got through
changing the environment around you for the people you meet.
Success is all in your head, and you need to deliver this aura.
People are capable of being persuaded and they love being sold
to.
Don’t worry about being too pushy. It’s actually not like that.
People like you to be pushy, they want to rediscover all the
reasons why they love life, they just need someone elicit them.
When the central command is highly active, it begins to
anticipate and organise mental representations to be ready
(primed) to deal with the upcoming anticipated situation (on
going emergent situation) by the central command getting these
ideas ready for use in advance of interpreting the situation, or
making an action, it chooses the most appropriate recalls for the
situation in terms of risk vs reward, and makes these schema’s
highly activated and thus easily accessible.
What truly motivates people and how can you
hook them in?
People are motivated by opportunity to survive,
“You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone”
This is thus the first step in any approach, and why we have
dedicated such a huge amount of information to designing your
character, building your approach of groups, and conveying
yourself in the right manner.
When we feel that a situation is better solved, or more efficiently
met through passing control over to the central command, our
consciousness typically takes responsibility and carries that out.
For example when you are driving particularly fast, your mind
automatically makes the decision to place your attention on the
road, even if you turn up the music loud, have a phone call, or
have screaming children at you… you automatically will make
those children be quiet, or kill the phone call, or turn down the
music if your driving ability is hampered to the point where
imminent death is likely.
However like implied, people don’t typically do such rash
actions as dedicating their entire computing power to a single
activity until imminent death, is actually about to occur.
This is because people seem unable to connect with risks that
aren’t … you know related directly to being a human, for
example people struggle to be motivated by money, even if they
know they are going to earn 1000 pounds in the morning doesn’t
mean they wake up early and do a significant more about of
effort in order to secure the sale?
Let’s put it another way, if you went up to a girl in a nightclub
and offered her 500 pounds to take her home, I think you would
have a significant portions of slaps in the face and very few girls
would actually accept your offer of the 500 pounds even though
I bet you that 90% of the girls in the club really need that 500
pounds.
The reason they won’t except isn’t because they think you're
being rude, or because “they are not like that” its because they
don’t see the value of money.
Even if you were the most gorgeous guy in the club, dead sexy,
they would not accept the money and you would still receive a
slap if you offered it to them. if you asked them why they
slapped you, they would say “because you don’t need to pay,
your gorgeous, but just the fact you ask makes you weird so I’m
not going to do it”
The this example - you can notice that the girl doesn’t seem to
have made a rational decision. Yet people are supposed to
always choose the most efficient response? so why is this… ?
People simply aren’t motivated by things that don’t immediately
further their existence - because she is not in a situation that
means she needs to make a decision not usually within her
comfort zone - then she will just decline.
She isn’t awake, she doesn’t know its a good opportunity. This
is your opportunity to use the principles of marketing to make
someone’s call to action sense of really interacting with ongoing
data come alive and start learning exactly the things you are
saying, and setting up ‘if-then’ response cues that makes
decisions, beliefs and carries out actions for you. - See the
‘Superneg’ further down in this chapter as this explains more.
Summarizing the Sexual Capitalism Model
Throughout the text Sexual Capitalism we have explained an
elaborate system to understand - the nature of hypnosis - to not
only be part of human decision making but also - that human
decision making is governed by the realm of normal economic
forces that can be predicted through normal market analysis that
can be found in the world of economics.
People who are unresponsive to their environment can be seen
to be one of three types of people.
1) Perhaps they won’t concentrate - this is because they perhaps
are invested elsewhere, they are distracted by ongoing events in
their life, or uncompleted business that needs to be mentally
attended to. then there is
2) those who simply find you uninteresting - this is people who
actually find you rather predictable, they think they can judge
and work out what you are going to say before you say it, they
know your intentions you seem obvious to them - you're similar
to a person they have known in the past - perhaps you move too
fast and they judge you to be rather nervous, perhaps you speak
too boldly and they judge you to be egotistical or perhaps they
find you too normal and then find you uninteresting, either way
they seem to know everything about everything you're talking
about and it’s hardly surprising, shocking, or weird and
wonderful.
3) There are just people who find themselves unstimulated by
the ideas present, they might not actually recognize that any
ideas are present. It’s not that your uninteresting, its that the
ideas that you represent are boring. Like you could be an
amazing person, but if you are talking about something that they
either don’t understand, don’t want to understand - or isn’t
related enough to them - then there really is no point talking
about it, its too abstract they can’t seem to work out what your
saying - your best just keeping it simple.
Typically hypnotists, PUA’s, nlpers and persuaders don’t
actually address these three groups; instead they just catergorize
them as ‘Resistant subjects’ when this is just simply down to the
fact they are not willing to change their character and nature in
order to get more people onboard, instead they just blame the
subjects - or in some cases they may just say that hypnosis or
NLP doesn’t work on all people but it simply down to them not
being engaging enough to be able to capture the imagination of
people individually.
This System is Specific
It’s not designed so it can work on the majority of people - its not
generalized suggestions in a kind of ‘ one size fits all’ promise,
this system is designed that you know how to use it on lots of
different types of people to really get an approach and speaking
and interactive sequence with people that holds their attention
every step of the way that allows you to count every individual
compliance test and know when people are moving with you or
are moving away from you - people say well isn’t hypnosis
risky, like you can’t do covert hypnosis because there is a huge
risk of getting caught - but if you look at a girl in the eyes and tilt
your head while accidently touching her stomach as you spin
around an angle and lightly accidently touch her stomach, you
have ran a lot of tests and you can immediately tell if she is
emotionally reactive with you.
And thus if the system is working, if it happens that the system
isn’t working then it really doesn’t matter because the sexual
capitalism system can be seen as a kind of pre- hypnosis
something that occurs even before you do pick up, before you do
the interaction, before you even do a kind of ‘pre talk’ a pre
explaination with people about what you do and how
psychology works.
How can we make people superstitious about value.
“Almost all elements of learning from experience have elements
of superstition, belief in the effectiveness of various strategies or
rules are often learned in conditions that make it hard to
distinguish casual causes” ( James G. March, Chip Heath: 1994,
p90)
So there is a very famous study by Skinner, where he puts a bird
in a box, and basically there is a button and what happens is that
the button doesn’t actually do anything, its just there is one, and
randomly at intervenes food will be released into the birdcage so
the bird get’s fed. What happens is though, that occasionally the
bird is pressing the button and simultaneously food drops into
the box.
So the food and the button pressing seem correlated, so what
happens is the bird keeps on pressing the button, in order so
more food comes out - and of course eventually the food does
come out, further causing the bird to keep on pressing the
button.
It’s like sometimes we have these moments where we suddenly
are ready to build new stereotyping ‘cause-effect- models of the
world and how the world should work. These happen when
suddenly the brain experiences huge structural changes, when
the information we think we know about the world doesn’t seem
to explain what is suddenly occurring and we experience maybe
a laugh or a surprise.
If you look back into the sections on the book that we dedicated
to the linguistics of humour those sections are there in order to
show that when - there is a phrase that means two things
simultaneously - the feeling in the brain of all the connections in
the connectome (assuming connectome theory is true) suddenly
switch from one priorities of pathway - the setup of the joke (the
thing you think the story is referring to) then suddenly you
discover the joke really meant something else - then you
experience this huge rush of energy released when your neurons
all switch around.
This novel experience is something we aim to achieve whenever
we are talking with our subjects.
There are special conditions where people do seem
hypersensitive to want to use new predictive models - to want to
build new casual relationships of predicting the future and are
happily to temporarily take on new learning - in these scenarios
the person seems to take every little gesture you do, every little
inflex in the voice, every subtle gesture - to mean something - its
automatically interpreted and reacted to. Later throughout this
closing section we refer to this as emotional reactiveness.
There are certain high risk, or high reward situations that seem
to cause this reaction, these are;
i) false time constraint
ii) huge opportunity available (big potential reward)
iii) zero opportunity cost because they have become bored of the
situation they are in.
Let’s just quickly go through a summary what these are; so false
time constraint is when you believe an offer is a one time offer,
that you only have this moment to decide on whether you want
to do something, so take today for example there was a product
that I half like - to be honest I don't think I would ever buy this
product - but what happened was the product suddenly
dropped about 40 pounds in price, that made it 25% cheaper
than usual! Suddenly I was thinking about getting my wallet out
and buying it.
I know if I tried to sell this product I wouldn’t make more than
the price I would pay for it, therefore the benefits of buying it
were only for myself and not for financial gain. Yet I fully know
that the product would not actually aid my life in anyway - it
was simply that I had a short amount of time where unless I
made a decision I would lose the opportunity forever.
This is similar to the effect you see in nightclubs where people at
the end are quick to pounce on each other, knowing that unless
they do it then, there might not be another good opportunity to
meet someone for weeks if not months.
So we mentioned point number 2) Huge opportunity available -
now this won’t usually work - because sometimes people have
the attitude of ‘its too good to be true’ sometimes people can’t
seem to connect with a situation that is out of their realm of
knowledge, like it doesn’t matter that someone is offered
something amazing, like right now if someone phones me up
and says “do you want to go Miami?” to be honest I’m not sure
that’s possible for me right now, like I’ve got a lot of things
going on I struggle to imagine going Miami right now, so I don’t
know if that’s actually something that’s possible until its right
there in front of my face.
Most people can’t actually recognize a good thing until its
actually happening to them if people could recognize a good
thing before it was happening to them you’d have a lot more
people who would be working hard to get to where they want to
be in life, but the thing is until you're there you just don’t fully
accept that its possible.
Look at someone like Donald Trump, people like him put their
success down to the fact that they know it is possible because
they have done it before, Donald Trump has lost his billions
twice, and now he’s a billionaire again.
People say, oh that’s because investors would believe in him,
because if he’s done it before he can do it again - thats just
untrue, you could easily argue the except opposite using their
logic by saying - look if you let investors down once, then they
are not going to trust you not to let them down again are they?
So the opportunity one doesn’t usually work, unless you give
someone a little sniff of what the ‘good life’ feels like first, and
then once they’ve felt a bit of what it’s like and suddenly they
want more then you can lead them onto it and make a bit of
profit out of the interaction - you’ve got their compliance and
you can control them a little bit and take them where you want
to go with it.
Now theres some people who hate their lives, 3) these aren’t the
same people who hate their lives in the other section mentioned
earlier on in the book necessarily. it’s not really like that.
No we are referring to people who just don’t find the
environment they are in stimulating, so often you see them
reacting to things going on around them - they seem to have
their eyes on the room rather than have their eyes on where they
are currently at - what they are currently involved with they
have their eyes on the opportunities flying by them.
In the approach outlined we sometimes refer to these as the
people on the ‘edge of the circle’ its these people that are getting
ready to jump ship but don’t know how. By finding people with
absolutely nothing, and offering them something is usually a get
out card that they will absolutely treasure to bits.
If you look into the Future-Pace, bait & switch that we describe
in this section you will hear about a method that is designed to
make people not value what they currently have so that you can
cause them to want to switch using this simple psychological
method.
How can we cause a good vibe in our lives
and environments.
You’ve got to keep your life fluid and mixed. I know this can be
a lot harder than it sounds, but just try to relax a little bit, push
your shoulders all the way back, stand up straight, look straight
ahead and breath deeply that will help alot.
Now how can we build hypnotic environments around us. Well
one thing you need to remember if that you have two ears, and
one mouth, you have two eyes, and one mouth. Or let’s put it
this way, you have four input devices, and one brain! so try to
use the brain a little bit less and instead of trying to judge ‘what's
going on’ or thinking about this or that in the future or the past -
thinking about how the situation isn’t as you expected or
whether the situation is as you expected.
Instead just watch. this will take a huge amount of pressure off
yourself. “The moment you start seeing your life as playfulness,
all of the burden on your heart disappears” – Osho”
The entire sexual capitalism model came from my experiences
during University where I would attend meetings of Street
Hypnotists and Pick Up Artists and I realized that 95% of their
time wasn’t spent hypnotizing it was actually spend changing
venue, looking for a certain type of vibe - none of them knew
they were searching for this ‘good vibe’ so I decided to
investigate what the vibe was, and how to spot and create it.
You're looking for that place where people have their eyes wide
up, and they are seeing life for the first time again with full HD
vision on.
Be Energetic.
You need to realize that many of the reactions that you are
looking for in your subjects are not to be found in your subjects
they are to be found in yourself. If you act cute, then you tend to
find cute girls, if you act sexy then you will find sexy girls, if you
act smart then you will find smart girls.
What you need to be looking for is to be emotionally reactive, or
in your case emotionally responsive but you want to put your
energy and focus into being your very best self.
When you are out, doing hypnosis or pick up, this is your
opportunity to be people facing, I recommend that you see
yourself as the club host, a kind of brand ambassador for your
brand, or for the club or venue, or establishment you are in. See
yourself as a kind of Disneyland and what you are doing is you
are there to educate about what makes you different, and to
make everyone feel as comfortable and have an as enjoyable
night as possible.
I used to focus a huge amount of energy into being weird as this
seemed to cause people to not treat the situation they were in as
mundane, and thus would cause an active learning procedure
that would make the person I’m speaking to seem hyper reactive
to the information present, but then I learnt about how good it is
to be professional, just think about the way you are acting and
ask yourself “if I saw this guy on a plane or a train - would I
respect him, would I like the energy, his mannerisms the way he
leans over - or would I think the guy was a depressed sleaze” try
to get that nailed, and be someone who you yourself would have
admiration for and then you will a lot more confident in putting
yourself out there and displaying the necessary charisma.
It’s all about getting those back areas of the brain working - the
bits of the brain that are hyperactive but not just active to use the
traditional schemas for understanding the environment, but the
motor-cortex responsible for the assimilation of new activities,
the learning of new primings and they getting ready of
responses, by making new interpretations.
In order to do this, not only do you need the person you're
speaking to, feel relaxed and un-threatened but you’ve got to
make them feel engaged and have their senses heightened, they
need to be alert and holding their breath for the next thing you're
going to say, like a little stray puppy you need that - follow you
around look and attitude, and you want this puppy to be happy
and wagging it’s tail, but quick to respond to the ‘sit’ command
because it feels food is upcoming.
Overcome yourself, and find that you’re a
great persuader.
“A Hypnotist is a kind of a hero”
I believe ‘flow’ is a true expression of self-actualized form that
man could achieve, not only as a philosophic position… but that
there was a ‘true nature’ that one had, and the moment one
acted, ‘from himself’ rather than ‘from the world’ he
automatically acquired wealth from ‘attention to his own
masculinity’ and the constant build and artistic development of
his soul.
And that instantly he would acquire all the wealth and
opportunity in the universe. Weird thing to say right? Not so
much.
Life only gives you the smallest inch of opportunity, but that
inch is enough. (if you constantly expand)
There is a very special wavelength, of flow. that any man can
achieve. This place is when you take away all the things you
don’t want but commit your energy towards, and then put all
your energy only into the necessary. This approach might not
make you rich, it might not make you cool, it might mean you
have zero results… but you don’t care for those things any
longer.
And the moment you stop caring for those things, and only take
control of that seven pounds of soul left. Then you're truly
discovered. - so cut out the unnecessary today.
Throughout this text - Sexual Capitalism - we focused around
the economic nature of man. Where do decisions come from,
what makes you competitive or altruistic towards others - and
how our successes and failures are governed by this pursuit for
value.
How financial, material, and artistic goals are defined within
your philosophic focus, and then cause the playout of your
desires through the marketplace where you express yourself –
your friends, your family, your work, your hobbies. and you get
the result.
What truly makes you happy? How can you be honestly happy?
This question is answered from much discussion into Plato,
Socrates and Aristotle, the answer is “Man’s conquering over
nature, seeing the results of your personal effort”.
To do this, doesn’t mean drinking so much coffee that your
‘wired’ or having so much ‘sugar’ that you can’t taste the
cleanness of the air anymore, eating so much that you are tired,
no!
You are pure, you are sufficient. Real success comes from just
working on the process and doing your best, to actually create,
to invent and conquer yourself. (See Nietzsche) , to be better
than you yesterday by using the information you created, to use
yesterday to build today.
This is your true form, it’s the natural process, and it’s what
sports psychologists refer to as ‘flow’ when you just keep going,
when you move throughout a hockey game without thinking, or
fight in a boxing match without following the rules of “false hit,
false hit, whack him” it’s the moving without ‘being responsive’
to any rule, or any man… without this extra ‘logic’ based on
what everything else is doing… the world bends around you.
Just seeing out things pan out, is kind of the better way to do
many things in life. Let me give an example, you know if you are
a fighter, you can’t be a fighter by basing your actions on your
opponent, because your opponent has more time to just carry
out things, and then you need to block his punch, think through
your response, but he’s already just carrying out these punches
and moves… you have so little time to actually react, so you're
putting yourself at a huge disadvantage and you're very likely to
fail.
This is what it’s like when you're not in the flow, you push
against the supply and demand of life and don’t work with the
opportunities that you have. You’ve got to be better than that,
and just be the one who see’s the trend and just goes with it, the
trend is your friend… just go with the flow.
Because if you're in the middle of a potential motorbike accident,
and you don’t slow down time, and be in the flow of the
moment while coming off the bike… and truly make peace with
the universe, if you don’t do that… then basically you’re a dead
man and will be wrapped around a tree or have your head
thrown over unexpectedly because of the way you landed.
The brain simply doesn’t have the capacity to weigh up complex
environments so people most the time just consolidate and
switch off everything but their ability to breath, and earn a just
above homeless wage packet, keeping their fun levels… just
high enough so they don’t actually decide to step out in front of
a subway train on 7th avenue at 6am in the morning.
They can just about cope with the fun levels, with the
interesting enough levels they provide themselves with… that
the mind provides themselves with, enough to make life worth
living giving their risk reward consolidation decision that their
mind calculated.
I know nothing about the development of Ebay as a business,
but they went from nothing, to being a huge company in a very
short space of time by investing everything that they had come
to them, into the system.
I know guys who have become $100,000 dollar guys in a matter
of months of investing $20 a day, then 60$ a day then $2,000 a
day into adwords campaigns, by just knowing the exact
conversion rates, knowing the probability of someone buying
their stuff versus the cost it takes to get someone on their page
and making sure that as long as it costs less for every sale, than
the profit you receive from the sale, then you should just sell as
many units of that as you possibly can.
This is the flow, you don’t think you just do, now I get that for a
lot of people reading this article they might be workaholics,
geeks, or just people who have never really properly been out
before, its just a different mindset and there is kind of a flow for
it.
Whatever you focus on, is what you get. So if you focus on the
person your speaking to – and then they like you. But in order to
achieve this you must truly give up all the things you don’t
want, and just be.
Create A Service People Would Pay For!
I went through this stage of being this ‘crazy guy’ who partied
and socialized, and I was kind of ‘on my own thing’ I was
producing my own vibe, my own jokes..
Now a lot of pick up training companies will tell you “you’ve
got to be yourself”, “you’ve got to make jokes for you, you’ve
got to be independent and zero neediness” HELLO! I was
completely entertaining myself during that time and got ZERO
girls! What why?!
It’s simple, people won’t pay for a service that isn’t benefiting
them, you’ve got to relate what you are about to the needs of the
person you're speaking to, and by identifying that demand is the
first step to getting what you want, through framing what you
want as a product or service for them.
Let’s take another core rule from the text; “You tend to think
you rock, but the market thinks you suck!” Do you ever feel like
you should be doing so much better in life? like potential sexual
partners should think your so much fitter, more intelligent, more
of a good deal than you seem to get credit for?
The thing is, are you counting the opportunities you have (the
things you haven’t done yet, or the things you did in the past
that aren’t relevant anymore… or the opportunities you have
that don’t affect your immediate present value) into your
calculation of how much credit you should deserve in this
moment?
Well baby, I think that answers your own question, if you're
basing your company, or self based on future potential profit
(pipe dream) or based on your past success… you can’t really
expect a girl of that inflated price point to go for you, when she
is likely showing all of her immediate present value, and not
counting the past and the future that she’s considering as
important to her character that you’re failing to appreciate.
In other words, you are far less cool than you think you are if
you use that method of calculating your worth against others
who you calculate their worth based on what is immediately
visible.. “How emotionally available she seems”, “how well
dressed she is”, “the quality of her makeup”, “her ability to
communicate coherently”.
On-Screen Attraction: It’s the environment
that creates the vibe.
There’s lots of buzzwords and phrases that we could easily say,
but you’ve just got to be the one that brings someone up if they
feel down. You’ve got to create scenarios that doesn’t ask
someone to “Method act, and act like you fancy me” but creates
a scenario that makes fancying you the only response that feels
right given the scenario.
Look at it this way, if you get a girl in bed, she’s going to feel like
maybe there is a sexual tension in the room… and that is because
she wants to ‘get with you’ or ‘be with you’. But this vibe in the
room isn’t because of that, it’s just a economic thing that forms
the solution “go out with him” as the set of associations, action
response sets to do…
So the moment you accidentally brush past her, she might go to
kiss you and didn’t actually think about kissing you, it wasn’t
planned or coordinated it was something that she just did
spontaneously. This is what the central command will do if you
can create an environment that makes someone be a method
actor without knowing that they are one, that makes someone
put on their own best impression of “just pretend your my wife”
but without having to ask them to pretend they are your wife.
Like in the old movies when two spies are entering a hotel, and
they ask to rent a hotel room and the receptionist says “you're
both married” and they both say “yeah I’m Mr and Mrs [second
name].”And then instantly you feel the on-screen attraction
between the two film characters, you suddenly feel as if there is
real physical attraction, true love going to happen.
The situation is the one that makes her feel like she’s in love with
the dude, not the actual rationality of whether it’s a logic
situation to be with this guy… people don’t have the mental
capacity to make ‘logical decisions’ their brain is asleep, it needs
to wake up to see the wood through the trees, and suddenly
being in an amusing situation like the one with the hotel
receptionist is enough to bring those creative resources back
online, to really take in the information and create processes,
beliefs and cues from the situation.
We are not surprised when a two-year-old looks at a dog and
says “doggie!” because we are used to the miracle of children
learning to recognize and name things. Kahneman, D. (2011:15)
it does not take a genius; to realize that the infant has little or no
working memory and that this recall process didn't require
conscious input.
Don’t be too picky - if Opportunities were
obvious they would already be taken.
Life is much simpler when you just go with the flow, when you
just do what the trend wants you to do, and give the people
what they want rather than fight against them…. You will be
repaid far more.
If a girl fancies you - but she’s not your type. Why turn her
down, its just money left on the table? But then consider this -
on that note if you wouldn’t turn down a girl who was trying it
on with you even though you don’t fancy her - then what
difference would it make to try it on with a girl who you don’t
fancy? What so just because she was the one who initiated and
even though you don’t fancy her - then it’s accepted to get with
her - but you wouldn’t be the one to talk to her if the scenario
never occurred?
Well that makes no sense, you’ve got to be the guy who is out
there making a difference and actually making things happen in
his life
Take the example of a guy who says… “Oh, I would get with her
but she’s not my type… it would be nice to have a girlfriend
though” you hear this alot… this guy really needs a girlfriend,
he should just get with her, it’s the best decision he could make,
and besides it’s a learning experience… what’s the worst that
can happen?
In the end he will come out with more knowledge and a richer
experience base from which he can draw future decisions from.
And chances are - he will often actually end up really liking the
girl.
Take this example; I used to teach a lot of pick up artist courses
and what I found was that I would ask students with whom I
spoke to on the phone I would say “How long ago was it when
you went up to a girl and approached her and flirted with her”
the student will typically say “oh that was about 2 years ago”
this was a typical response, and then you would question the
student further “so, not had a girlfriend or anything in a while”
the student will reply that they haven’t had any girls recently
and they don’t know what - then you ask “So who was the girl
you approached and flirted with, did you know her?” guess
what - nine times out of ten the ONLY girl that he had actually
gone up to and spoke to in the last 4 years actually agreed to go
out with him and they ended up having a long happy
relationship.
This is ridiculously common a story. What happens is that guys
have this image of perfection of what they want they might have
this imagine based on the last girl that they were with or some
other kind of thing that gives them an indication of what they
think they want - then what they go and do is look for that girl
in the environment - now either slowly or quickly the guy
encounters problems, he seems to not be picking up any girls -
there seems to be a real absence of women in his life, he can’t
seem to find anyone?
Does this story sound familiar? This is the same description as
‘flow’ let me explain the process of writing this book - this final
chapter of the book has taken me on and off about 4 months, if
not an entire year? Why has it taken so long just to do a final
chapter? Well, its because its the final one - its that when this
chapter is complete then the book is finished and I can publish it.
So everytime I step up to write this final chapter I have this big
sense of - “I’m going to stay up all night tonight and finish this
book” this wanting to completely finish the entire book in a day.
Of course what happens is I start looking through the book, I feel
the immense pressure - I wonder why my ideas aren’t very
creative and I have writers block - I just want the writing I write
to be amazing, to have that magical day where everything is
completely perfect and I just come out with all the right words
and ideas and the whole book just becomes completed as if by
magic.
There was one day this summer where I was writing some of my
book - and I was sitting at the computer annoyed that I didn’t
seem to be making any progress on my writing, I was looking at
the screen and I was reading through my words and I was
experiencing writers block. A friend calls me up and he offers
me the opportunity to go cliff diving, - what we would do is go
and climb over a fence into an Abandoned Quarry and jump off
the cliff - there would be about 20 girls going he said - and it is a
beautiful sunny day outside (not very common in England) so
the best thing to do would be to leave the computer writing task
and instead go cliff jumping with my friends.
Now I know I’ve got the ability and mindset to jump off a 120ft
cliff and dive into a lake. I know I should be able to do that. But
the thing is, when what you want doesn’t match up with the
environment you are in then you simply cannot carry out the
activity you are trying to complete - you have to force yourself to
do it. Your heart and soul isn’t into it because your goals aren’t
aligned.
See, it’s like me saying that I want to be the next justin bieber -
well that idea isn’t as bad as these guys who are looking for a
certain type of girl. The thing is, your opportunities that you
have belong to you. You know it’s not that you can’t get a really
gorgeous girl - it might just be that the way you are is in the way,
or perhaps you're not meeting enough people, but to simply turn
down good opportunities is just backwards.
Just think of it this way, just say to yourself that every time god
offers you an opportunity right in front of you - if you turn it
down, then god like friends, is going to stop inviting you to the
party - if every time you're offered to go to a party you say -
“nah I’m busy” then eventually you’ll stop getting invited - at
first because people don’t think that you want to come and
eventually you’ll stop being invited because people will think it
would be awkward if you did come.
Eventually you won’t even know how to act at parties, and you
won’t know how to have conversations with those old friends.
Well the same happens with these opportunities that god passes
you - if you stop taking them then he simply won’t offer you
anymore because he doesn’t think you want those one’s he will
be too busy searching for the exact opportunity he thinks you
want that he won’t be able to keep offering you ones because he
will be too busy trying to work out exactly it is that you do want.
Quick Tips on speaking to girls.
Now we would like to cover how to create a personal connection
with your audience in these environmental situations.
How should you speak to a girl? Or gain someone’s interest and
turn this into a phone number, a kiss, or more? In this section we
are going to discuss the following five tips in greater detail;
1) Be cute: positive and happy traits like that you see in an infant
invokes a evolutionary response to want to nurture this person.
Personality traits like: playfulness, curiosity, innocence and
affectionate behaviour. So this means smiling, a real lasting
smile, and making eye contact with people and talking about
your life, and the people around you in a positive way.
2) Be aware who is into you: Who is giving you that ‘look’ who
do you ‘lock eyes with, who is standing close to you. Who plays
with their hair or grooms themselves around you.
3) Always be indirect: Never admit you fancy someone directly.
Say stories that promote conversation, that misdirect attention
away from the escalation of touch, eye contact etc. without
giving away you like them.
4) Use touch early on: If someone accepts your increasing touch
while you interact with them. Then they probably like you,
especially if they touch you back.
5) Talk to everyone: Even if it’s just about things that are going
through your mind, be interested in other peoples opinions,
ideas, experiences and lives and they’ll more likely value yours.
Gain emotional investment from people by
escalating without getting caught.
Attraction only exists after she has hugely invested in you, only
then do you have a complete monopoly over the choices she has.
Once she’s sent you a ridiculous amounts of text messages, spent
a massive amount of time.
She doesn’t consider any other man an option, but she considers
you her only option. This is the problem we have we have this
initial situation where we are in this perfectly competitive
market and from this position we want to move with the girl
through this sequence to a place where you’re in love.
So how do we do this? The way we do that is through escalation
without getting caught. Seduction is like a little wedge, that you
get in there from building responsiveness, but once someone is
complying to you, it’s pretty much guaranteed that when you
put another test of compliance in front of them they are likely to
respond to it.
Getting someone focused, getting them interested, you just want
someone’s attention and the longer you have their attention, the
more locked in they are to you and the less they are to every
other competition. But the problem is people are going to blow
you out initially if they think you're trying to steal their value,
their utility from them.
If people think “oh the only reason he’s talking to me is because
he thinks I’m hot” then you don’t chance, whether it’s a guy or a
girl, if you approach Richard Branson he’s going to be thinking
“What does this guy want an autograph or money?”
They are just going to blow you out, they have no responsibility
to you something, it doesn’t help them in their life to give you
something, its no benefit to them, and they’ve got a billion other
people to give stuff to, why would they pick you?
But if you're further down the conversation, if your friends with
them a week later then they are in a much more locked in
position to give you money, and you might only be in a small
group of people who has that opportunity at that point, the
probabilities change with every single test with every single
moment that you're speaking to someone.
And this is the truth, the truth that many aren’t ready to hear,
there is no hypnosis, there is no ultimate PUA technique, the
truth is that you can soft calibration any moment and you can
pace and lead any response onto the next moment to increase the
responsiveness further.
For example; this evening I was sitting in a booth on the edge of
a dance floor, a girl was standing leaning against the edge of the
booth, I said to my friends to move along as to allow her to sit
down, I told her to sit and she sat in the newly allocated space.
This was her passing compliance test number one, leaning across
my friends to talk to her I took hold of her hand and pulled her
so she was leaning across the table to speak to me, I asked
“what’s your name”. (compliance test number 2) I then pulled
her across my friends so she had to climb over them so she was
sitting on my lap (compliance test number 3), I tilted my head
and she tilted in response (mimicking my social learning, this
was compliance test 4) I kissed her.
Many would argue that there is a difference between compliance
and responsiveness. However I would argue that both require
her attention, and both involve her committing to an activity
derived from you, it’s just the term compliance often implies
someone had a ‘conscious process’ that eventually resulted in
them mentally selecting whether to comply with you.
Whereas responsiveness implies there was no mental choice
selection process. I would argue that all choices are made based
on what seems like the best option available at the time and are
allocated automatically based on value without any kind of
conscious choice mechanism ever coming into play even if the
target feels like they did consider it a choice.
There's no magic attraction switch in the brain. If you ever ask
someone whether they are attracted to you (before they are in
love with you) they will always answer no.
Number #1 tip on how to be more good
looking: Look groomed & act cute!
Looking groomed and acting cute is really something that can
make such a gigantic impact of the impression that others have
of you. Before we explain in this section how you can go about
making yourself feel more cute, and suggest what ‘looking
groomed’ means we are first going to mention some of the
features that would make you cute;
- Ensure that your eyes are wide open and you're ‘taking in the
world’: what do I mean by this, I think you need to start looking
people in the eyes again. I get that during worklife and a lot of
situations its actually rude to directly look someone in the eye -
this might not be something you’ve heard about or have spoken
about, but often it seems a little too personal and revealing to
make eye contact with people - whether people reading this
realize it or not there is actually a lot of circumstances where
looking someone in the eyes is really not a good thing to do.
But when you are meeting people and your wanting to make a
good impression; or you're wanting to influence people then
using eye contact during the opening moments can often be a
significant part of the approach that you should consider.
- Unbridled smiling - so this means smiling with a kind of
uncontrolled ness as if you just smile because you do and you
can’t really help that you're smiling, you're smiling because life
is good and you feel happy and there is nothing that you can do
about it. Why does this work - well people are looking for people
who seem kind of genuine, not only that but people often are
attracted towards value and if you seem happy then it seems its
because you have or know something that they don’t know in
their own lives so they will move towards you because you seem
like you're doing great and they’ll want to feel the benefits of
that.
- Innocence - Now this might seem a little contradictory to the
knowledge that you will find in pick up artist books, they will
tell you that you need to be dominant when talking to people
because this communicates that you are an alpha male and have
leadership qualities. Well those guys are kind of right, but you
need also to be innocent, let me explain the people who achieve
great things in the world often aren’t the smartest of people -
often they are just the people who believed it was possible or
thought it could be possible and went out to do their very best to
try and make it happen regardless of whether there was
information they didn’t know about or consider - they were just
innocently en-passioned. You know most things aren’t really
great ideas, they aren’t business ideas that sound good on paper
- its just that one man can really build an empire just through his
good spirit and his ability to see positives through the negatives,
maybe this is a bit innocent or naive - but it doesn’t really matter
if it works out for the guy. He’s built something from nothing
through his pure focus to make the best out the situation that he
can.
Affectionate behaviour - Often when people just are a person
who isn’t a thinker but instead is the type of person who takes
action you will see them carrying out activities such as touching
things. They will be the kind of person who instead of
wondering what something is, they will go up and ask the thing
“what are you?” instead of sitting with problems they work out
solutions, they are the kind of person to go and touch and prod
something they find curious or peculiar.
If you like a girls dress you should touch it and compliment her
on her dress, if you like someones jacket you should touch their
jacket while mentioning that its nice -doing this touch while
speaking about someone will confirm your point and make you
come across more genuine.
Another tip that is important to consider is Playfulness - which
could be defined as finding the fun in the moment. As you get
older in life you tend to become a little cynical about the world -
you stop trusting people, having faith that projects and ideas
will come off, you even start to not even be sure of your own
sexual turn ons - because you don’t express them.
You look on Facebook - and everyone seems to be writing the
same statuses “Spending the evening with the boyfriend” and
that sort of thing - and you think “Really?” Sorry now I’m
coming across Cynical, but I want to point out that I don’t
believe that people are really that similar that we should all be
living this kind of standardized life.
There will be people out there - who have the same passions and
interests as you - it’s just they ‘like you’ haven’t had a chance to
express themselves, and have lost track of what they believe in
and stand for.
I remember when I was a kid. I’m not saying that I was mega
happy or anything - but I definitely just did whatever I felt like,
and because of that my character and identity was a bit more
rounded. As an adult - maybe it’s just me - but I’m constantly
aware of my restrictions - the things I can’t do. Eventually there
are so many restrictions it’s not even about what I can’t do
anymore - I don’t seem to know what I want to do.
I know part of my job writing this book is to be inspirational - so
I don’t like sometimes to destroy the Vince Lynch image, but I
have weaknesses, like others reading this.
You’ve just got to have faith and hope that - everything will be
ok - because your from this moment onwards - only going to do
what's necessary and best for you.
“Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and
happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness: kindness in
your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile.”
― Mother Teresa
Grooming: what it takes to appear well kept.
People have kind of a template for what a person who is looking
after themselves is like - and this communicates, health, good
genetic heritage, kindness to loved ones, charity, ability to
generate profit & opportunities.
In order to come across - well groomed - it often means that you
just need to look like you ‘look after yourself’ on a daily, regular
basis. For example, if your sideburns aren’t equal - then it might
be that you have poor attention to detail, if you have hairs
growing out of your ears - then you need to wonder ‘why
haven’t you looked in the mirror at your ears in years?’ or ‘Why
hasn’t a loved one told you or groomed you’.
These lack of grooming are warning signs to potential partners.
Instantly it kills any hope of attraction. Because it means that all
the qualities you need to display in order to attract a mate - or
often even just to attract supporters in business, to make you
more persuasive - well you’re just ignoring the key variables that
can make the biggest impact to your success.
I’ve been the guy who has wanted to go into business meetings
and said “Why do I need to shave? I can look however I want - I
should spend more time making sure the quality of my ideas is
as succinct as possible rather than wasting it on - grooming.”
I’ve said that kind of phrasing alot! And I’ve spent enough time
with people who are pretty good at doing the - getting famous
game - or even just pretty good at doing business - and I’ve got
to say - that I was wrong!
I’ve got a associate who is fairly famous - me and him often
would go into important meetings together - he would suggest
that I wore a suit etc - even when I didn’t really feel like that was
important, I decided to follow his advice - he would always say
“Think of it this way, even if your ideas suck.... people are still
going to think - man that guy is pretty professional, and has a
great image”.
And he would repeat a line that you often hear from salespeople
“people mainly buy from you, because they like you - and trust
you.”
You know when you see these really disgusting old men and
women - and you think to yourself - “how do you not know that
you are grim?” they clearly haven’t looked in a mirror in years,
and I have actually asked these people whether they have
actually looked in the mirror and they told me straight that they
haven’t looked in the mirror because they are too embarrassed.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was a fat kid in school - so what he
decided to do was wear tiny t-shirts knowing full well that
people would point out that he was fat ugly and disgusting - he
didn’t hide the fact that he was fat away from his mind - he
didn’t avoid the truth by hoping that no one would pay
attention to him - he didn’t shrink into the background of the
room so no one would pay attention to him.
You know when you show someone the webcam on your
computer, or you try and Skype someone or you try and take a
photo of someone and they tell you that they don’t do photos -
then you need to think ‘wow - this person has a serious issue”
the most important thing is that you don’t become that person -
take a look in the mirror and consider what you look like, who
you have become - and then think how you want to see yourself
- see yourself as someone respectable.
Ask yourself;
- If I did wear after shave everyday what aftershave would I
wear and why would I wear it, what would I like people to say
about me after I walk past them?
- If I was to wear clothes that indicated someone I respected,
what would I wear?
- Ask yourself why someone who claims to be successful
wouldn’t have their hair cut into a style, why they wouldn’t
have the best hairdresser possible.
It’s not that you actually have to do these things in order to be
groomed it’s just that most people who have become unkept
have some kind of underlying reason why they have become like
that. For me for example there was a stage where I really let my
health go down the pan - you might wonder how someone can
damage their own health.
There really is a variety of ways. I damaged my own health
because I was deeply unhappy because I compared myself to
where I wanted to be in my own life, and because I felt the stress
of not been actually at the level where I wanted to be this meant
that I let my self deteriorate.
It’s never too late to gain your identity back. Don’t worry people
won’t make a fuss ! and besides do you really care? the whole
point is that you’ve hidden into the background all your life
hoping that no one would ever make a fuss and notice you,
when really you are a child of god - you are the truth of pure
hope and dreams its just your not getting to express yourself
because your somehow ashamed of things you’ve done or not
done in your life and as a result you're punishing yourself.
Stop punishing yourself, it’s just a waste of time, instead just
focus on making each second the best one you can make, make
each day a positive one.
You know, attractiveness is really just down to how much you
look after yourself “Shave your beard”, “have a shower”, “have
a walk and build up the odd bit of testosterone”, “get outside a
little bit and get a bit of the sun rays on your Face” and how
“socially open you are” and then boom you're attractive, you
don’t need to do those thing’s as a chore.
People see you how you feel your experience of being with
yourself. If you're harsh and critical on yourself, then this is
communicated to other people as if you're struggling or down
and out. If your positive and free open, and just open minded
about your experiences with others then they will experience
you as capable of going to new places with them.
The thing is, just because your open, and she’s open, doesn’t
mean anything is ever going to happen. You can be with open
minded people about doing business with you, but unless you
actually step up and produce output, you actually ask for the
business, you actually ask for the relationship…
When we trust someone we establish this truth on two things
1) What are their motives?
2) Are they cute?
Unless you represent these two qualities, and make yourself
readable in these respects then people won’t be able to judge
whether you are trustworthy.
In order for people to be able to judge your motives - you must
be a selfish person who seeks the best opportunities available to
you - by being that kind of person makes you predictable.
Now I know some of the egotistical few of you reading this
might think - “But I don't want to be predictable”, you might
think that being predictable is a bad thing - I can see what you
mean - like suppose you're a predictable person and you attend
the same household everyday after working a stable job - then
what might happen is someone might work out where you live
and follow you home and kill you - in that argument it would
seem that being predictable is bad.
However that’s ignoring the efficiency created by keeping such a
simple cycle - the benefits created by fully investing and
specializing in doing a simple task. i.e. because the person is
repeating the same sequence everyday their earning potential,
and their ability to save up money from that routine could be
much higher than someone who tries to make money by doing
unique activities, i.e. setting up entrepreneurial projects.
No, because your selfishly seeking efficiency and thus becoming
predictable it actually means that you produce surplus of value -
that attracts others towards you. For example if in the example
above you were followed home from work and killed by
someone - it might be that the reason they followed you home
was to rob your money - what happened is that your activities
about you somehow gave away - made you seem valuable and
thus attracted in this case thieves.
But you need to weigh up the probabilities. I would bet you the
advantages of being predictable by seeking out efficiencies and
being selfish - hugely outweigh the loss of opportunity by
constantly mixing up your experiences to try and seek out new
opportunities that you’ve never seen before.
I’ve seen this real trend in many of the geniuses that I know - I
know plenty of clever guys and the reason they are clever is
actually their shortfall. These guys are always wanting to learn
new stuff and they are always doing the activities that inspire
and entertain them - they don’t build businesses that are
designed to educate others because by the time these ‘geniuses’
have heard and explored the new idea to the max they are bored
of it and start moving onto another project.
“these guys” are unable to control their emotions and
concentration effectively to dedicate themselves to exploiting the
good knowledge they already have - and are more in the
business of entertaining themselves by pursuing projects just to
make them ‘feel clever’.
People need to know that you act in a predictable and logical
way. It’s like when you mention that you're going on holiday or
leaving the country soon to go travelling for a few months - and
you expect that everyone you mention it to is going to think that
you're so cool and amazing and is going to thus ‘wake up and
admire you’ when instead you get the the exact opposite
response.
You mention that you're going travelling and suddenly the
person you're speaking to seems to withdraw, basically they
don’t understand you - they don't understand why you are
talking to them, what they are going to get out of it. If you are
leaving the country then what good is building a relationship
between yourself and them - they don't really care about the
relationship that you could potentially build because there is the
obvious risk that you are just going to jeopardize it.
You know, it doesn’t matter if a girl feels like you're trying to
sleep with her that much - providing you're not doing this and
not clearly understanding that she doesn’t fancy you and
pushing her and rubbing her up the wrong way - if you see what
I mean?
What’s worse is when you hide what your intentions are. Where
you seem to trap your personality away in a little box and don’t
seem to want to give anything a try in life anymore.
And that brings us back to cuteness... Cuteness is that little bit of
‘hope’.
Physical cuteness, gives rise to astounding benefits that some
have dubbed the beauty premium. Attractive people receive
more favorable treatment in hiring and promotion and are rated
as smarter, more extraverted, more socially skilled and as more
effective classroom instructors.
If we are not born with cute features - although I personally
believe we all are - once I went out with a girl who everyone
kept telling me that I was too good for her. however I knew her
personal story about why she often seemed a bit introverted, and
I felt like her reasons were noble. I felt like against such huge
adversity that she had experienced in her life - that she was
actually ‘giving life a try’ and actually did have that spark of
hope and faith and was ‘going for it’ and for that reasons it made
her beautiful, its just that the perception of her from others was
that by contrast to their plans, and the way they expressed
themselves in public they saw her as not been outgoing and fun.
See, looks is all about how you convey it - this isn’t just
something that you hear on dating shows, weight loss programs
on TV. it’s the actual truth.
Even if we are not actually cute, we can easily still create the
same ‘imprinting’ response in our audiences by having them pay
attention to our features we deliver an illusion of their size as
other features in comparison become distant, less prominent and
become background.
When you meet people for the first few times - you actually
teach them how to interact with you and judge your looks and
character. When we meet people we actually see very little about
them and probably couldn’t really draw a picture of them if we
didn’t have them in front of us to draw a picture of them.
What we do is we just learn a few ‘judgements’ about a person -
we find a few centers of focus that we use, things that make a
person stand out and we use these benchmarks and fill in the
gaps to discover the rest about a person.
If a person seems to be generally smiling when we see them -
then we assume that they are a happy person - when the reality
is you might have just seem them a handful of times where they
weren’t really happy they were just having a brief relaxed
moment in an otherwise stressful day.
“How much do we see? In fact, we see very little, just a few
things our attention happens to focus on. Every time we look at
something we just pick up a few features and 'recognize' the
whole picture from our past experiences and memories.
For example, when we enter a familiar room, we do not have to
examine every item there to recognize it. We just know what is
there and where everything is located. A quick glance is enough.
So do we actually see the environment or do we just know 'what
is there'? In fact, our perceptual reconstruction (or 'what we
think we see') comes from two opposite directions - from outside
(environmental stimuli) and inside (mental images we have
stored in the brain).
The more familiar the environment or situation, the less we
actually perceive it. The brain does not need to process all the
stimuli; it just 'fills in the gaps' and 'predicts' the final picture.”
Bogdashina (2002)
Enough research in evolutionary psychology has been carried
out to safely say that, All mammals have a natural evolutionary
protective mechanism of ‘infant-mammal-shaped things’ the
basic lay out of this is Large eyes, on a small soft round head,
which is slightly shorter in shape & length than that of an adult
mammals head. This ‘cute’ look can be found in teddy bears,
teenage pop stars, infants and some adults who are often seen to
be super-physically attractive.
Everything is a compliance test; and you can
never be a master of rapport!
The real talent that ‘natural’ persuaders and seducers have is an
ability to create and recognize who is socially learning from
them, and then to escalate their responsiveness by guiding them
through a series of tests that are performed without alerting
suspicion that he is merely trying to manipulate the target for his
own utility means rather than creating a mutual benefit above
the cost of her other opportunities.
Country to popular belief within the pick-up community, no
indicator of interest is ever spontaneous, the reason a girl is
looking at you isn’t because she’s giving you an indicator of
interest it’s because she’s responding to something you’ve
already done. It could be said that every indicator of interest is
always a forced IOI.
An IOI never comes from nowhere. It’s always a response to
something you’ve already done.
What is the look?
Leaning in to you, Smiling, Eye contact, standing proximate to
you,
For example you might walk into a club with your shoulders
back, smiling, you slowly scan and make eye contact with
everyone in the club you turn away and turn back and every girl
turns and smiles at you. To call this an IOI would confuse the
term. Because it wasn’t spontaneous, it’s a reaction to you being
a source of utility (in this case positive emotion, genetic need to
nurture because of cuteness phenomena). You threw out a
compliance test, and you checked who responded to the test.
These IOI’s were a response to the soft compliance test that you
already put out there; you just did a test and observed the results
to see who was an eligible fascination candidate.
The reality is you have a lot of competitors, more than any other
industry you’ll compete in for the rest of your life. Rarely is an
IOI really an IOI. It’s more of a reaction, a response.
If you know when people are on the verge of listening to you, on
the verge of being attracted to you, and on the verge of kissing
you, on the verge of being in love with you. You can track their
progress through the stages. And push them into the next stage.
Typical understanding of the concept of ‘indicators of interest’,
might question me and say, Ok, so you mean “When a girl
brushes her hair… she’s into me right” Well yes I do mean that
“Or when she leans in” Yes, “Or when she goes to touch me or
hold my hand” yeah these are all good ways of knowing a girl is
into you. But these are after you’ve initiated the interaction and
then begun escalating the amount of touch that you’re using on
her. You already had her from the moment that she allocated her
attention onto you over all other competing moments for her
attention.
This is why this chapter is called ‘everything is a compliance
test’ because the truth is, everything is. This is the ultimate secret
to hypnosis and PUA. The thing that can make you into a
freaking god, you wouldn’t believe the things I’ve done if I told
you. I used to go freaking invisible to my ex-girlfriend all the
time depending how she responded to how I moved around the
room, using merely soft compliance. I even did this on close
friends. Early in my hypnosis days when I was still a strong
seducer, I said to my friend “you haven’t spoken in a while” I
pointed to my throat “you know when your throat seals up, like
it’s so dry that you can’t even speak and you don’t know why
but words just won’t come up” he ended up losing his voice for
over a week.
What is ‘Soft Testing’ and how can you use it
to judge the hypnotic-ness of a venue?
I have a more vague but yet appropriate way of soft testing
entire clubs or large venues full of people, and this comes from a
technique by a 1940’s to 1980’s famous hypnotist called ‘Milton
Erickson’.
After a long discussion with myself and another hypnotist
Anthony Jacquin, we both agreed that Erickson ‘acted’ like a
snake when he hypnotized people, he would bob his head up
and down and side to side throughout the pre-talk with a
hypnotic subject. - We thought that there was probably
something in the ‘head bobbing’ - or ‘acting similar to a snake to
hypnotize people’ but we didn’t draw any major conclusions - it
was just a brief anecdote.
There’s a popular culture term among people who go out
looking for members of the opposite sex at night-time in clubs
and bars, called ‘Sharking’ this is where guys circle groups of
girls, like the girls are fishes and the guys are sharks. These guys
basically wait until they see some kind of responsiveness from a
girl and then they then start dancing with them, eventually
closing them.
Upon seeing & using this technique in order to ‘soft test’ groups
of girls and see who was emotionally responsive or reactive to
my presence - reminded me of a similar technique I used years
earlier when I was a bit of a Goldeneye - Expert on the Nintendo
64 Games Console.
In this 3D first person shooter based on the Storyline James
Bond: Goldeneye - the film, you in multiplayer mode would
have to kill your competitors amongst a fairly large map else
they would kill you. These competitors would be other players
who were also in front of the TV playing the game against you.
I discovered that if you move around your competitors at a circle
kind of angle - this would do two things - firstly you would
always be on their side. (as they turn to try and shoot you),
secondly when you saw an opportunity to get closer you could
merely bend the trajectory of the circle to swing closer behind
them, and swing out as appropriate.
If you did this swinging perfectly you could ensure you were
always at an Angle where you could move quickly and would
never put yourself at a position where you could be shot - You
would repeat this circle attack over and over until the competitor
would have no choice but to break your circling of them (as
being in the circle makes them vulnerable) and instead they will
move away to run from you (at which point they are a perfect
target to gun down).
The point is, by circling people, they really have two choices - to
continue to let you have the upper hand while you circle them,
or to break the sequence of you circling them and leave
themselves vulnerable to attack. (at they would now be moving
in a straight line)
Soft Testing & The Eb & Flow of Magic.
The psychology of magic, mainly refers to doing techniques
under a guise that is a moment. It’s where you have changed the
moment of attention so that everyone else is looking for a
causality occurrence to occur in a certain moment rather than
another.
The reason my competitor moved in Goldeneye, was because
they believed that providing they moved they would likely be
able to shoot me, but I had already pre-anticipated where they
are likely to move, and therefore they step into my line of fire.
That is to say, the moment of attention is focused on when I
began circling them which they presume to be my attack, in
response they decide to attack me, which is the moment when
my real attack is carried out.
To sum up this concept, is like to explain why a successful war
strategy is better than the one of its competitor. It’s a difficult
thing to explain, but I believe examples from card magic make
this easier to understand.
For example imagine that I’m performing a card trick on you. In
this trick I might show you the back of a single card, and ask you
to name any card. I briefly show that the card you named is
nowhere to be found in the deck, I show you this by spreading
the deck, I show you this by leaning forwards and thumbing
through the cards face up.
I then lean back (the off beat) and relax at this moment I switch
hands and switch the single isolated card for the card you
named. I then delay, lean forwards and turn over that one card
to reveal it to be your card. This creates the illusion that I knew
you card all along. This happened by using the offbeat to do the
dirty work of switching the card.
I’d like to continue to explain this metaphor about magic, into
the realm of seduction in the comfort stage of the interaction.
When you place your arm round a girl, if she knows that you’re
on purposely putting your arm around her because you want
her, or if you get caught holding her arm etc. - this will likely
convey that your ‘interested in the girl’ - and will ‘get in the way’
(or distract) her from her own process of discovery, her own
warming to you - her growing need for you.
Therefore the classic way to get around this is, like what you see
guys do in the cinema, they might lean over to get some
popcorn, or yawn and as they do they raise their arms above
their shoulders and put them around the girl as they relax, as if
by accident. That is to say they increased the amount of kino in
the interaction by escalating the kino during an offbeat.
I was talking through the idea of snaking with a friend. And I
mentioned that I was utterly convinced that it had something to
do with onbeats and offbeats. And I was discussing what
references in magic there were, and of course the book absolute
magic and pure effect by Derren Brown came up and Strong
Magic by Daryl Ozitz came up.
I was saying how its such a shame that there seems to be many
books alluding to their being a psychology of magic but they
never say exactly what it is. They mainly talk about moving the
moment, moving the causality of the effect around, and using
delays and relaxation moments during effects in order to switch
a deck of cards for another deck of cards, or do a move such as
switching a packet of cards for another packet.
All of which are advised to be performed during the offbeat.
However that begs the question “How do you create an
offbeat?”, this is something that is never explicitly discussed. The
way to create an offbeat, is to create a moment, an onbeat, then
the offbeat will naturally follow immediately afterwards,
attention comes in short packages and ends suddenly.
Like the guy who puts the girls attention on him reaching to
grab the popcorn or the yawn places her attention on that, the
following moment off the back of that is where the offbeat is
where he can increase his level of kino escalation. The same can
be said in the early stages of attention, for example when you
initially capture someone’s interest.
Perhaps you want to lock eyes with a girl in the bar, you can’t
simply just lock eyes with her, that would give away your game,
it would look like it’s entirely planned, however you might be
clearly and obviously looking for a friend and as you look for
your friend you lock eyes with your target.
The snake technique is similar in many respects to all of the
metaphors mentioned. When you move around a nightclub you
should never move in a straight line. You should move around
like a snake.
What this does, is it creates onbeats, moments where you appear
to be almost approaching someone, when you’re not really,
you're simply just wandering the venue, and then just as you get
close to them you move off in the other direction as you continue
the path of the zigzag.
This creates a moment of ‘onbeat’ where youre approaching, and
offbeat when you're moving away. The girls who are responsive
to you will watch you as you begin moving away but blank you
as your moving close. These girls who are hyper responsive to
your progressive absence, are somewhat interested in you. They
could be said to be indifferent to your charm, something about
you has opened a doorway to them. (Indifferent is fine in
persuasion - actually your not looking for the big response -
you're looking for that process of - going with you - rather than
“no!”... don’t encourage anything that might cause a big “no!”)
In addition to the movement of you in the club, this pulsing and
vibrating of getting closer to people then further away as a kind
of indirect test. I used to regularly refer to a ‘movement’ I was
never entirely sure what I was referring to but I told my friends
“make a big move and see who watches” so I might begin
speaking loudly and then quietly to see who looks over, or I
might just randomly lift one arm up in the arm and wave
pretending I’m waving to someone but I’m not actually waving
to anyone to see who takes notice.
These big movements create an onbeat when people pay
attention to you, followed by a moment where the dirty work
happens, where you check who is keeping on your track, and
then you can make an approach over to that person under the
guise of something else and strike up an interaction.
You use your ability to misdirect the attention of the target to
‘shroud over’ your escalation exercises. By doing this you can
engage the attention on focusing on a story, while you engage in
touch, or eye contact that is hidden as elements of the story
rather than looking like you're attempting to pick up the girl. If
she notices that you're attempting to pick her up, she will be
focused on that, and it will feel as if you are the one that is
pushing her through the stages rather than her discovering her
feelings for you.
One method of ‘shoulding’ or creating a misdirection is to use a
intense signal of emotion on your part that dictates their
response, for example after the sponge ball disappears from the
magicians hand if the magician appears genuinely astonished
that the sponge ball isn’t there then the audience might perceive
that the sponge ball has genuinely vanished!
The way a magic trick works or the way tasting what a cup of
coffee tastes like or how high a step is the same reason why
you’re going to get girls after reading this. It’s not the trick that
makes the magic; it’s your expression in the moment where there
is a void in the mind of the spectator who is expecting a
conditioned reality causality path to occur that causes the
reaction, if you look disappointed then the audience members
become disappointed as they watch your reaction because they
assume that’s part of the reality being as they have nothing else
to expect. They look to you to ‘learn’ about something they don’t
know about yet, this is called ‘social learning’ or ‘imprinting’ this
how we learn language, the association between mummy and
daddy.
When you take a sip of a drink and you expect it to taste like one
drink, and then you realize its not that drink you're drinking
something else, exists a moment where the drink tastes like
nothing then it slowly changes into the taste of the drink that it
really is. We have anchors, and triggers that define our sense of
being in one place as opposed to another, that trigger our
reactions.
To go back to Erickson’s use of the snake, I imagine from
watching videos of this famous hypnotherapist and from the
conversations that I’ve had with others who have mentioned
that they gain some benefit from knowing about this, that
Erickson would bob his end up and down and side to side
during the pre talk with his therapy clients. And when he
noticed his clients respond by bobbing their heads and whatnot
he would proceed to hypnotize them.
I’ve noticed this same effect by watching the interaction between
girls and boys who suddenly become attracted to one another. If
you take notice of girls and boys. Each of them have their own
bodily rhythm like the way they move their hips, compared to
their torso. I’m not necessarily referring to dancing but their
entire body when moving, or standing. Think of them as like a
snake that rattles its body.
When someone is attracted to you, they rattle their body to the
same rhythm that you rattle yours and suddenly you feel
attracted or hyper responsive to them. If you want to attract
someone as you move around a venue in the snake like zig zag
fashion you should be aware of your bodies rattle, and the body
rattle of girls you spot who you would like to seduce.
When you spot a girl you might like to acquire, you should
move your body in the rhythm that she moves. And then you
will have her into you.
When you speak to guys who are natural seducers, they often
tend to claim that it ‘all comes from the hips’, that there reason
for seducing all the girls, or guys is that they are great dancers.
At many times in my life I understood what this meant, and at
other times I hadn’t got a clue what these crazy loons were going
on about.
When I didn’t understand, I made the mistake of assuming these
guys meant that they would always ask girls to dance, and
therefore that would be their special technique that would get a
relationship going with the girl.
The times when I understood EXACTLY what these guys were
referring to, is when I knew about the ‘light’ and the ‘snake’.
Dance isn’t about what you do when you're holding onto a girl,
we are all constantly dancing. When we walk, when we talk, we
have a rhythm.
A great dancer tunes his rhythm so that he always has a partner,
when partner takes the role of the male and takes the lead, and
the other member takes the role of the female and follows the
dance.
Kissing is an ideo motor response. A kiss is only genuine when it
isn’t pre-planned. It is the levels of mimicking, ioi’s, rapport and
compliance that lets you know that your 100% certain you will
get a kiss close. Without these things, the answer is, no she’s not
ready for a kiss close.
And if she is complying with you, then whatever you (pace and
lead) her into she will 100% fall into. Knowing this will allow
you to realise that people are ready for a full close far before you
or they would recognize it to be called anything like attraction.
Because it simply isn’t attraction.
After being a teenager for several years and constantly having
the urge to feel attracted to people (because of a hormone
imbalance coupled with the new freedom to interact with
strangers)
As we progress into adults we lose the ability to feel this lust for
everyone (of the opposite sex), we become so used to spending
time with others that we forget that kissing could always
happen. We kind of become immune to attraction except under
‘special circumstances’.
Attraction is what happens during this ‘special circumstance’ it’s
a gentle guidance of a feeling of excitement, matched with
fascination for someone, guided by mimicking their body
language cues.
All attraction begins with a kind of ‘fascination compliance’,
rather than directly ‘she’s begging for it’. The job of a seducer or
persuader is the ability to progress others through stages
towards our goals without alerting them of our intentions, via
elegant distraction.
Compliance Tests & Micro Calibration
Once you've used the techniques to create a New Frame in
someone’s mind, or if you want to test whether someone was
already responding to you, its importance to run some
compliance tests. These tests often not only have the effect of
testing to see if someone is responsive to you, but often build
responsiveness.
You can, point and ask the person to stand over there,
(indicating with two fingers) where to stand, instead of where
they are. And see if they respond and stand in the exact same
spot. If they do its likely that they are hypersensitive to your
rules, and therefore likely to accept more ambitious suggestions.
I've noticed that when you ask someone to cut a deck of playing
cards, that you can first indicate how to cut them off, and if the
individual you demonstrated this to, cuts off the exact same
amount of cards (just a rough guesstimate) then they are once
again hypersensitive to your rule setting, and unconsciously
treat it superstitiously.
You can, when going for a handshake, (or just in conversation)
leave their arm in an awkward position, hanging in the air, and
see if they leave it held in that position even after you've walked
away. If they have then it would seem they've treated your
implied reality superstitiously.
Many magic routines such as, Think of a color? (nearly everyone
says red), think of a number between one and ten (nearly
everyone says seven) only work on individuals who are quick to
respond to your suggestion, and take their first thought of
number or color as rule. This quick decision making in response
to your requests, demonstrations their hypersensitivity. As
opposed to individuals who on purposely try to think of a
complicated number or color to dupe you (such as nine and
pink).
If you ask them to look at something, or pass them something,
like your business card, you watch how long they look at that
single item for without their attention flickering onto something
more emergent. If they treat what you suggest with a degree of
undivided attention, then their attention is hyper-directed by
your priming. This is similar to how pickpockets, manage to
steal your wallet!
“In everyday life Professional pickpockets make use of
directional cues by bumping into a person or stepping on toes to
direct attention to the spot bumped on or stepped on, and away
from the pocket (Nardi,. P. 1984 p8) through the initial
interaction of attention they can guide the awareness of the
subject to a series of events that leads the victim to believe that
they were merely bumped into rather than robbed!
Another way of moulding the attention of a subject can
physically hold them by the shoulders, occasionally pressing
down, and seeing if they move their shoulders down with your
subtle request. One way seducers, hypnotists and magicians do
this is they may guide their participant around the venue, and
do this compliance test throughout the motion.
There are more general compliance tests that can be noticed
throughout all your interactions; these are noticing those that
copy you, that seem to use the exact same words, phrases, facial
expressions, or even the overall mindset and philosophies that
you seem to hold they almost seem to mimic. You may find that
they stand in a similar manner or that they use the same body
language. When individuals respond to these tests, then they are
responsive to your social proof.
Health: Don’t eat too much, don’t drink too
much - cut all the excess in your life of
everything.
You might not physically have it within you. In that case then
you will need to perhaps make several changes, to your sleep
habits, your sugar and caffeine intake, you might have to go see
a doctor and have some medication prescribed if you struggling
to stay awake.
I believe every human is unique, and therefore needs a unique
treatment. However there are some things you need to take into
consideration before you start self diagnosing yourself with all
kinds of problems.
Do you eat chips/crisps? do you eat chocolate bars? Do you eat
fatty food? Do you know that even with Good quality food your
body spends 40% of the energy it consumes directly into
breaking down that food that you consume to produce energy?
and that’s assuming the food you eat is both easy to break down
and nutritiousness. Do you know that everytime anti-oxidants
convert glucose and oxygen into energy it causes anti oxidants to
break down the length of your genetic string to actually reduce
the time you live on this planet.
So, if you consume a bag of potato chips with zero nutritious
value not only are you not consuming decent food, but you are
spending the energy you’ve managed to build up, on breaking
down food that can’t be broken down… you’re killing yourself
twice over.
Honestly, you may as well just literally kill yourself, you're
literally doing exactly that.. what your doing is just as bad as
smoking.
Most people I meet have this weird relationship with their own
sense of self where they are constantly either too awake or too
asleep. You know the feeling of waking up in the morning and
needing a coffee or a cigarette to ‘get you going’ but then you go
to work and then you take another coffee and then you feel too
wired, so then you need some food to ‘calm you down’ but then
after lunch all you want to do is fall asleep and you're finding
your doing no work.
The moment you cut out this up and down process of
consuming things are bad for you, all this heartache of being too
tired or too awake just disappears.
People in nightclubs, bars etc have the exact same problem…
they are either too awake, or too asleep, too drunk, or too sober.
They are the ones who have this poor relationship with their
own bodies, it's your responsibility to be the strong one, to be the
one who feels the pace of the person you're speaking to and
therefore communicates a sense of balance as a contrast to their
unbalanced world.
Forced Reinterpretation
If a girl; considers that your cute; Then you can add something
else to that mix of perceiving your cute, providing she focuses on
that task of you being cute for some time i.e. the mental software
is still switched on before she moves onto another task.
In other words - if you are ever guaranteed that someone is
experiencing something i.e. that they have some mental software
running - then because you're sure they are definitely
experiencing something then there is nothing to stop you saying
things related to what they are experiencing, saying things that
take the concept of the pre-activated state - which in this case is
‘cute’ and take that state to another level - a destination where it
would benefit you. Then you should aim to use the mental
software running as a bridge to where you want to be.
Whenever someone experiences this information clash - of two
concepts banging into one another - where in this case you might
cause cute and sexy to be related - what happens is that the
information causes a ‘forced reinterpretation’ if you think back
to the humour section of the book we hypothesize that when two
opposing states bump into one another - what happens is that all
the information in the connectome has to realign.
What happens is that the brain suddenly causes a huge rush of
some kind of energy source - and suddenly the person goes into
a learning state where they are hypersensitive to taking on board
new information.
For example if a girl is considering you to be cute, then this
would be a good opportunity to ask when you might be seeing
each other next. (realize that this might just be a brief moment in
time - like a girl might think you're cute or have a general sense
of you being cute - but she hasn’t addressed it in her mind as a
thought yet - in a few moments this schema might no longer be
activated - thus you need to notice these brief moments, or
assume these brief moments and take advantage of them.)
By doing this depending on her version of how she perceives
you to be cute, will cause the two to be connected “he’s cute”
with “seeing each other next?” which will have her visualize an
empty slot in her schedule or perhaps engage with the scenario
of doing something together.
The mind has an ability to look for zero-sum mathematical
games; and focus its attention and focus on it. Everyday I’m
emailed with questions such as “How can I make her love me?”,
“How can I make my boss like me?”, “I couldn’t hypnotize this
guy” and they expect me to explain why the relationship
formation they had wasn’t functioning like a team – and how
they now feel at economic loss because they can’t carry on the
path towards their goal pursuit – a higher utility.
Talking about love; creates love schemata – the idea of love –
when someone is lonely is a powerful emotion. At times we have
different drives; our career can be are foreground and love can
be in the background; but with the right conversation, a carefully
played piece of music, can que us and suddenly love can become
our foreground.
If you want someone to fall in love with you; then focus on the
fact that we all have a powerful desire to be nurtured – and we
rarely receive that kind of attention in other words “You fall in
love with whoever falls in love with you enough to nurture and
care for you”.
Act like a caricature of someone you would
respect: Be the Idealized Heroic version of
yourself.
Individuals strive for consistency of themselves an ability to tell
optimistic stories. These stories, these response sets of opinions
and values tend to exist in clusters that are internally consistent.
Whereas two clusters might contain values that are inconsistent
with each other. The same kind of consistency exists between
what a person knows or believes and what he does. That is to
say, people believe in what they do & vice versa. (Leon
Festinger: 1957)
Your opening conversations, teach the other person, primed
anchors about how to characterize you. “I'm older than brad Pitt,
but I’m younger than Mick Jagger”, “I love meeting new people
from all around the world” this could be described as
Demonstration of Higher Value in PUA literature, but really its
just been positive about yourself and others. “People Like
Positive People” Robert Caldini: (2005)
When individuals bargain with one another for power, the one
who admits they need something the most loses, and the other
one feels more powerful.
Not only do these techniques work on girls! But they work great
in other contexts with men too. I recommend that you make an
effort to be an excited admired person in every social context,
not just for attraction.
When you get into conversation with the person you want to
speak to, it is crucial to present yourself in an attractive light and
positive light. As long as your positive in every phrase you use,
you'll sound great “this place is really cool”, “that jacket is
great”, “Lets get some amazing drinks”, “Wanna see a cool
magic trick, my friends love this trick”.
Emotional reactiveness
What is emotional reactiveness, I feel like we might have
covered this a lot in the material that is covered in this book, but
I really feel that more and more this has become an important
element of my life.
If you don’t understand what the look of someone who is
reactive and responsive to the on-going emotional impact and
vibe of the scenario around them, then you’re really going to
calibrate to the fluctuations of emotions that a subject goes
through in response to you while you’re talking to them.
People think recognizing something is like a passive movement,
and sounds protective or conservative and not about going out
there and making something of the world, however they are
kind of incorrect, research, analysis, and careful planning really
can be an aggressive strategy…
For example, you might be unable to compete on direct
keywords on Google, but then what you can do is go long tail
and get all the keywords that others didn’t think about, the ones
that have really long sentences but people type them in, sure not
many people type them in but if you try and get all of those
people that all the ‘big guys’ forgot about then perhaps you
actually have a chance of winning, optimistic slightly? but it
could be done. Dress well, be smart, professional and be in
character like how you expect your hypnotic subjects to be,
focused but not dry, funny but not a joke.
How to get in the mood to make the best evening ever happen;
- Leave the house specifically to do hypnosis in mind, you will
accept every request, you will introduce yourself to the majority
of strangers. You don’t have to do it immediately the moment
you enter the busy place, you can do it gradually and spend four
hours doing it, but by the end you will have done the entire
place.
- Look for people who you see something about yourself in
them. This is because people like people like them, its ok to
slightly copy the bounce of someone’s walk, the way they move
to music and similar facial expressions but don’t do that too
much else it will look like you are staring at the person.
- Be in a really happy but relaxed mood, quietly comfortable,
you will find it easier to see out your peripheral vision. You
should always have people invest slightly more into you than
you invest into them, that means having them watch you more,
having them fascinated by you more, copy you more than you
do to them.
How to make them show signs of being a
good hypnotic subject.
What you are looking for when you begin hypnotizing someone
is for them to respond to your commands immediately and
literally, if I tell someone that their hands might begin to shake
then I expect to see their hands move slightly all by themselves,
if I tell someone there is magnets on their fingertips I expect to
see their fingers move in a way that resembles magnets pulling
those fingers together, I expect to see responses even though
they are responding to the physical sensation of those fingers
coming together because of the muscle tension.
It’s usually a sign of a good hypnotic subject is they instantly get
these kind of automatic muscular movements or shakes the
moment you start speaking to them, a fascinated, compliant or
somnambulist type subject will likely copy you, suck up to you,
be really nice to you, be a bit too keen to work with you and lots
of other things..
That way you know the subject is really attentive, but don’t
worry if the person you’re speaking to hasn’t shown any of those
signs yet all that means is that you need to be more enthusiastic
and encourage their attention and emotions better.
Even when a subject is playing along, acting, confused or just
listening to me, or even in the pre talk these are vital
opportunities to understand whether the subject is picking up on
your suggestions or not.
A huge portion of the time hypnotic subjects might have
misinterpreted a phenomena you’ve suggested to them or
whatever reason they just aren’t feeling it or responding to it,
and it’s too easy to disregard them as not hypnotized or difficult
to hypnotize because they will tell you that they are not
hypnotizable, but simultaneously you should be looking to see if
they are responding to at least some of the things you’re saying.
One of the early moments in becoming a new hypnotist is really
realizing that subjects are always awake, they always have the
ability to communicate, and if they want that can kick, scream
and complain how they can’t be hypnotized how they aren’t
really feeling it and you can walk them through every hypnotic
routine on the list while they say it.
You don’t own people, and they don’t own you. Please just keep
your relationships at arms length, its ok to talk to strangers but
don’t suddenly expect to become their best mate immediately
out of it. People can be a bit clingy, and honestly if someone
comes up to me and tries to be my mate… my number one
reaction is to try and get rid of them….
As much as I spend my life with people, I really need my own
space, and we all do. So keep your professionalism, and niceness
at the forefront of your mind because they are going to be your
savours when people start to overreact about your being in their
venue.
With regards to those who are scared to approach strangers….
Just fully imagine the worst case scenario… suppose you got
punched in the back of the head, or suppose the bouncers got
you permanently banned from all the bars in the city.
Those things could happen… but I want you to realize that they
won’t happen, so stop worrying about a girl rejecting you, that’s
really the least of your worries.
What is the peaceful moment?
A peaceful moment is something that not everyone can have
every single day of their life. You need to find that moment of
peace, in the eye of the storm - when we mentioned earlier on in
this section of the book that when I used to work solidly all week
- only then amongst all the hard work and the craziness only
then that’s when girls would seem to like me.
You know sometimes its like you need to spend time knuckling
down and get all your affairs in order, making sure that you are
earning, and keeping all of your game as tight as possible and
doing this so carefully and so methodologically that you can’t
even pop your head up for air.
Then suddenly what happens is you take a moment where you
suddenly let it all hang out - where you suddenly relax and
bring all the resources that you’ve managed to bring together
through your long sequence of hard work into one precise
moment of power.
There is a rush that most people are constantly looking for in
their lives, this is some kind of awake but creative and relaxed
feeling. What you need to do, is to be some kind of Zen Buddist
type figure who is truely grounded in the moment and by being
this person you teach those around you to do the same.
In the hypnosis approach that we are endorsing from Street
Hypnotism.com we use this - bringing together of the moment to
create a peace - before we go onto the topic of hypnosis with the
subjects who we are speaking to - we do this in order to ensure
that the person we are speaking to is capable of laterally
understanding the information we present in order so we can
inject the idea of hypnosis.
With Covert Hypnosis - we need to place even more importance
- we need to be even more focused on ensuring that the person
we are speaking to is in this ideal peaceful ‘ eye of the storm’
before we start delivering the suggestions that are going to make
sure that they are definitely capable of being open minded
enough while aware in order to place the information we state
into the right boxes rather than the stereotyped boxes the subject
would usually organise information into if we weren’t getting
them into this ‘special place’.
We have covered this before... but let’s just reliterate in
examples; lets put it this way - if you haven’t got them into that
special peaceful place and suddenly yu start talkign about how
the mind works - you start talking about science and
psychology. Well if you do that and they aren’t in the place
where they are comfortable and truely at ease with the world
then they might easily draw the conclusions that you are.... just
trying to show off.
Let me explain what I mean - I had a friend who I lent a great
deal of money to - especially considering at the time that money
was worth 33% of all my foreseable wealth in the recent future
and recent past.
Eventually after this friend screwed me over in a variety of ways
- I had to ask someone - I had to say “How can that guy do that
to me? Not only do that to me, but also do it to everyone else
around me and not feel bad about it”.
Then I was told something that I really thought was quite
profound - “When you have Nothing vince, you really can’t
think about other people - you are really just trying to keep your
head above water - when you are so fucked that there is nothing
you can do but lie cheat and steal, you really don’t think about
what other people think about - you just get away with what you
can”.
It suddenly occured to me, that I was in a very peaceful place in
my life and that others around me might not be in this same
peaceful place - what you need to do is find these moments -
where you bring all the hard work and dedication together.
Let’s give an example - suppose for months your revise for an
exam, you work all day everyday going through your notes,
making sure you write them down, maybe you record your
voice explaining your notes and then listen to the recording over
and over , and then from the recording you make diagrams and
pictures - you do what you can to make sure you study as hard
as possible.
All of this hard work, might have been difficult, you might have
had to put off so many other experiences in your life and as a
result of putting off those experiences - you felt a huge amount
of stress - you felt like it was hard work.
But when it comes to the actual examine date - what you likely
know is that you just need to be as relaxed as possible almost as
if you are actually half alseep but just answering and writing
down information from what you know without even thinking
about it because the information must exist in there somewhere.
It’s this kind of bringing together of all of the information - and
issuing through a perfectly relaxed and peaceful state.
What is the idea that ‘needs to be’ injected?
So basically you are teaching the subject how they need to be
interacting with you and what they are going to be doing with
their evening, what the feeling and vibe of the place is, what you
can do is set the tone and feel for the evening - so you might say
something like “you know when an you just want to have a
good time and just let your hair down, how you’ve been
working all week and you just want to finally do something for
yourself.”.
What you can also do is have people really become persuaded
by you by using some kind of script like the following - gently
introduce the subject to the topic of priming “you’ve probably
heard of the phrase, ‘don’t think of a black cat’, and then heard
that because you’ve been told of cats that a part of you is
thinking of cats right now”, “Like if I say the word cat and have
you think of the idea of a cat, you might struggle to name any
animal other than cat, because the idea of cats just pops up in
your head”. This is like “when someone says numbers to you
when your trying to remember a phone number, and you forget
and get confused which numbers you were thinking of”
or
Tell a story about concentration. “You know like when you’re in
an exam and that’s all you can focus on, it’s like you’re so
focused you don’t notice anything in the room or time passing”.
“like if you think about it, and you focus on it, that me
continuing to talk about it makes you unable to stop thinking
about it, like it holds all your attention, like you feel too
energetic about that thing”
or
One of the ideas that we try and inject is that the ideas that they
listen to me present are automatically carried out by the back of
their mind - that the phrase “don’t think of purple elephants”
actually causes someone to think of purple elephants just upon
hearing it. This is actually true in neuroscience - but we need
people to believe and understand it - not in order to make them
guilliable enough to fall for it - or not being it’s untrue and by
making people believe in it - makes it true?
No, someone doesn't need to believe the phrase “don’t think of
purple elephants” causes the idea of purple elephants to become
primed in their mind - in order for the idea of purple elephants
to become primed upon hearing it. The reason is because you
don’t want people to misinterpret or ignore the emphasis of the
things you are saying - you don’t want people to misinterpret
meaning and actualyl mishear what you mean because they are
using judgements, and snap thinking to say what they think it is
that your thinking of when really your describing something else
entirely.
By briefly ‘injecting’ the idea that ideas are processed
automatically and that decisions come from the back of the brain
that are just the easiest ones to think of - and if you have had a
conversation about cats - then later on when you are to name a
random animal - then its going to be extremely likely that you
are going to name the animal cat.
Then what happens is, is that the person you are talking to - is
more prepared to be influenced, because they kind of
understand when they are being influenced - it’s not that you
need them to ‘understand’ as in “oh he’s influencing me - this
works” - that bit doesn’t matter - you're just trying to signal out
to the person - “look the words and phrasing i’m using here
when I talk - is not what you think, i’m actually trying to say
something far more significant that you can understand right
now and you’ll be suprised by what you discover”.
Often when I’m chatting to a new group of people - first I might
take an interest in them to get me into their conversation and
group and come across like I am non threatening - and then I
might let them discover that I am a hypnotist - but not make a
big thing out of it - instead let them be the ones who pursue the
information out of me - remember its a pull strategy not a push.
Now I recognize that me being a hypnotist sparked up their
attention and suprise - the situation went from being a mundane
one - to a somewhat semi entertaining one. - their creative
systems are onboard whilst they are peaceful - this is my perfect
opportunity to inject the idea. Please note: that in my other
products such as the book “Street Hypnosis” I describe solutions
on how to make people more creative - i.e. there might be times
where people are peaceful enough to be influenced - but they are
not creative enough in order to hear you, so therefore that might
require a bit of a script in addition to the advice outlined in
Sexual Capitalism.
When it’s my opportunity to inject the idea of what hypnosis is
and I know that they are listening I might say something like the
following: “hypnosis is like, suppose I was to say the word cat,
and you think of the word cat and cat related things, like how
its furry, and has whiskers, their cute playfulness, you are so
focused on that thing, and it’s so easy to think of, it’s like
everything I was to ask you to think of an animal you can only
say (point at them) ‘cat”
This story illustrates that the mind really is capable of
assimilating information without them having to judge and
analyze - contradict or consider every piece of information they
hear - it’s kind of like you're asking the subject to - “just see the
wood for the trees”, because the things they think you say are
not the things you mean, so they should ‘hold tight’ and lose the
interpretation and instead let the answers emerge.
In order to elaborate my point often I have used the following
phrasing; “it’s like when you listen to a piece of music, or you
get a piece of music in your head, and it keeps playing round
and round all day long and you can’t get rid of it”.
So in this example I’m stating that just by hearing a tiny piece of
music you can elaborate the rest of the tune - and from that -
have such focus and concentration on that pattern of the song
being activated in your brain, that whenever you pay attention
to it - that song is still playing in your head - because it’s down
to increased bloodflow in that area, those pathways are opened
up and they may stay open for a while.
To imply that whenever you mention ideas that a similar thing
tends to happen - it's that when we learn a ‘new situation’ this
process happens where our brain has a sudden release or burst
of energy from the forced reinterpretation that we become
amused as this puzzle, template, or schema continues in our
head without us seeming to be the one who activated it
consciously.... it just does because it has the energy to, and
amuses itself.
You can use these stories in order to illustrate the idea that they
need to “pucker up” and “be present” or “be in the room” and
“go with the vibe of what you're saying”.
Other ideas that you might want to inject could be well suited
also, for example it might be cool if you want to actually get the
idea that you want the subject to focus on for the rest of the
conversation/interaction injected by this point - let me explain
what I mean.
See the suggestions that we’ve listed above are mainly to make
sure the subject is listening to you, bright eyed and bushy tailed.
However, it might not be neccessary therefore to start talking
about psychology only to try and make them bright eyed and
bushy tailed.
Remember - once you do the next step after the idea injection -
your going to do the ‘lock down’ either by using a super neg or
by using the anger suggestion, or by suddenly make their
emotions kick - Adeneral glands start releasing hormones into
the bloodstream.
You need to inject your ideas that are going to be the focus when
their adrenaline kicks - the content of their thoughts that they are
going to give priority to when their body goes into shutdown to
protect only the necessary as it enters something that isn’t
exactly like fight or flight mode, but has some of the similarities.
What are the aims of the peace-idea inject-
superneg sequence?
Make someone concentrate.
Teach someone how their brain can do this.
Make someone excitable or scared.
How to modify someone else’s brain ‘as if’ they have taken a
drug
I’m going to be honest - I’ve been working recently using a
combination of tablets in order to maintain the perfect writing
state - this hasn’t been easy, and took a long time to work out
what was legal to take in the United Kingdom, whilst weighing
up what I could actually get hold of, and what wasn’t just a
placebo effect.
In the end I’ve really found three great tablets, going in this
order of importance - Modafinil.
Modafinil - makes you alert, its used to make people be wide
awake, like truck drivers, or people who are so constantly tired
that they are unable to go to work - what I’ve found by taking
these is that they aren’t that great for concentration, let me
explain what I mean - they don’t neccessarily increase
productivity - what they do instead is make you unable to focus
on anything other than the thing your doing.
For example, I might be walking down a road - purely on
Modafinil and know that my Ibiza hotel is just on this street in
400 yards on the left, but what happens is that I’m so focused on
the walking - on the mission of getting to the hotel that what I
will do is overshoot my walk by quite a long distance, I might be
walking for another 20 minutes and I haven;t even considered
the fact that I walked passed my hotel twenty minutes ago I am
purely focused on getting to that hotel. Me and my friend always
tell people that Modafinil doesn’t actually make you concentrate
or work -all that it does is - whatever task you are doing - your
going to be doing that and you will be unable to think about
anything other than the task that you are doing for a long time.
So if your scrolling through facebook on Modafinil then your
going to be scroling through facebook for a long time and not
doing anything else - and if anyone else asked you what you
could be doing instead - you wouldn’t be able to give them an
answer.
Modafinil is not a party drug - whatsoever. Not at all - it doesn’t
make you socialize, if you were to go out - or do a gig when you
are on Modafinil - what happens is that you don’t have the
fluency to be able to converse with strangers - the conversation is
too unpredictable you lose that creativity that free thinking to be
able to go anywhere with your imagination and be diverse and
interesting - your not interesting when your on Modafinil your
highly focused, you don’t gain any euphoria or good feeling
hence why it has little abuse potential.
So Modafinil sounds pretty good right? Since 2010 I had been
looking for tablets that I could take that were legal and could
somehow increase me, they could make me a better version of
myself. I tried all kinds of vitamins, I did research on Google
Scholar, but of course all the stuff developed by the drug
companies couldn’t actually be legally obtained, so the only
choices you would usually be left down to was to actually work
out what the components of the drug were - and see if you could
acquire those.
Now of course - some drugs actually are manufactured - like
there is some kind of chemical process that I wouldn’t
understand because I don’t know anything about chemistry to
form a new compound through some kind of reaction. I think
the layman to all of this would probably assume that most drugs
are that - they are formed from some kind of chemical process,
they are unique and unobtainable without a understanding of
pharmacy and chemistry.
That actually isn’t the case - often drugs you read about - the
patented super well known powerful drug by some big
pharmaceutical company - you read through the ingredients,
and you’ll find that they have 20% of their own patented unique
thing that only they can manufacture in the drug, and then the
other 80% of the drug is some kind of commonly found
solution/plant/mineral. So you might think “oh so only 20% of
the tablet actually works - the other 80% is just bulk to make it be
full of vitamins of something?”
No way, its actually the reverse. When you research the patented
component of the drug that the company manufactures, you
quickly discover that the patented part is something they’ve
placed into lots of the drugs they retail - and many of these
drugs are completely unrelated fields of health that bare no
similarity in goals with the drug you were analyzing.
So then you need to ask yourself - if the drug I’m about to take,
has 20% of it identical to a drug that is completely irrelevant for
my condition - and would suit a completely different condition
better - then that 20% either doesn’t seem to affect me, or affect
the completely different person, and therefore would conclude
“oh so it must be the 80% of vitamins, solutions, plans, and
minerals that seems to be the active force in the drug.”
Yeah, bingo! That’s the one.
So I was mentioning that at the time I was searching for all kinds
of ways that I could improve myself - nothing seemed to work - I
seemed to try things that many people on the forums seemed to
recommend - and I didn’t seem any more intelligent (nootropics)
or any more strong or dominant as a man (these were the two I
decided to focus on).
I had actually begun to think that just taking vitamins was
enough, and that playing around with all these tablets was just a
waste of money and actually was stupid - because everytime I
got hold of something for about a day I would be saying - “this
half seems to be working” and then the next day I would be
saying “well, that wasn’t very dramatic... actually thinking about
it, it seems like placebo... I was just feeling the effect on the first
day because I was taken in by the process... of trying something
new - and searching within my feelings to see if its affecting me,
and this searching within myself to see if it was working - was
actually awakening within myself the muscle memory - or the
impulsive system of what I want - to bring those ideas and
reactions to priming so thus I could more easily use them - and
thus I would inaccurately believe this was the positive effect
from the drug. Well, I wouldn’t believe it, because I would
recognize this is how placebo works, but someone else might
mistaken it for the actual working of the drug and end up
spending a lifetime on some nonsense drug.
I was beginning these drugs were all placebo (all the legal ones)
until all of a sudden I discovered DHEA, and I was like “Wow, I
cannot believe how dramatic that effect is”. DHEA is often
referred to as the ‘wonder drug’ or the age reversing drug.
Usually such large claims I wouldn't take very seriously. but I
thought I would order some. I took far too much the first time I
took it, and I suddenly was like “I can’t believe how angry I am”
I felt like - you know when you are in that mood where you feel
really dominant, and its not that you're necessarily angry but its
like on that particular day you feel very strong.
When you're in this dominant mood - girls seem to come onto
you, and guys seem to automatically want to start fights with
you - and your not really noticing that your acting any different -
but you feel kind of amazing, you feel kind of on top of the
world - and are surprised that - “why would people want to
fight me today, I’m in such a good mood”.
Well this is the effects of high testosterone levels, DHEA is a
prohormone, what that means is - that it merely produces more
adrenal hormones, that later convert into stuff like Testosterone -
or a chance of it converting into Estrogen.
Obviously as a guy you don’t want it to convert into Estrogen,
but luckily Estrogen converts in the fat cells of men, and if you
have high ZInc levels, Zinc actually blocks the pathways
(somehow) and therefore prevent these Adrenal hormones
turning into Estrogen, thus forcing them to become Testosterone.
The reason I ordered DHEA and it was one of the last legal
drugs I ordered - for this mission of improving myself - the
reason why I accepted that it was potentially a good idea to
order DHEA, and that it likely wouldn’t be ‘just another placebo’
was because it was banned as a doping drug within sports.
I had hoped that if it was banned within sports - then it was very
possibly probable that it actually worked to enhance physical or
mental performance.
Now although the DHEA made me more dominant which I did
feel was good for socializing with people, and did make me
seem to get pumped up bigger when I trained at the gym. I do
not feel that it increased my intelligence - even though DHEA
does convert into Human Growth Hormone which causes the
rebuilding of cells and hence why people claim that DHEA can
reverse aging.
I personally stopped taking DHEA because I felt like my
intelligence was reducing - This was a long decision to make.
Partially because I had found the new wonder drug which was
the Modafinil.
Now, I mentioned earlier that Modafinil seemed to make you so
focused, but actually reduces creativity.
I hope that illustrates what can happen to your hypnotic subjects
if you come across “Dry” or if they come across “Dry” let me
explain what I mean by this - sometimes hypnotists or
conversationalists can spend so much time trying to make
someone focused, trying to make someone committed, trying to
make someone agree and sign their name on the dotted line.
That actually the interaction becomes very dry... it lacks that wet
and moist emotion, it lacks that ability to think freely, to free
associate one moment to the next - and talk and think about just
anything anything that crops up from the imagination.
It limits the conversation to just “one topic” and makes you
unresponsive and unreactive to anything off that path.
These days when I am talking to someone - I’m assessing “What
drug do I believe they are on?” I know full well they haven’t
taken anything - but what I mean is “what place are they in” and
then what I ask myself if “when do I push them into that state
that is similar to X drug”.
In this section of “Idea Injection” we are assuming that someone
is free thinking, creative, relaxed, peaceful, but their mind is
suprised, active and capable of learning.
This is very different to the description of Modafinil. It’s almost
like we want to “make someone creative so they can understand
concept x” and then “make someone have similar effects to what
they would have on modafinil” in our structure we do that using
the super neg, or kicking the adrenal up or using the anger
metaphor.
For a while when I was travelling around the world teaching
hypnosis courses, I would take Modafinil to hypnotize subjects
either side of the course - so I would be awake, and focused.
However what I found is often this would cause me to follow the
structure too precisely and loose much of the interaction with
the subject - to back and forth flow of responsiveness.
Often hypnosis subjects - or people you speak to - copy your
behaviour, attitude, to the letter - they become like you while
your speaking to them.
In order for my subjects to be “wet” rather than “dry” I would
have to use the right levels of character, charisma and focus in
my conversation and delivery.
Anyway, just to finish explaining about what drugs I take in
order to write this book. I take Zinc - to block Estrogen, I take
Modafinil to make me not tired - focused but also not lazy to
make me committed. I take Piracetam which is a drug people use
for Lucid Dreaming, and people with alzheimer's are given to
increase conductivity between memories and ideas. Piracetam
has a strange effect of giving you nightmares.
And I take Ginkgo Bilbo to increase blood circulation around the
brain, to open up tiny vessels - I believe this works because my
cheeks seem to flush when I take it. I’ve taken other tablets that
offer to increase blood circulation in the brain, but I’ve found
they seem to make your cheeks flush but you don’t feel any
more creative.
And I take Vitamin B tablets - often used for cell division, for
energy between cells when they divide, metabolism of vitamins,
chemicals, minerals, etc into cells to help them produce energy
and continue whatever task they are doing. I take a vitamin B
every time I feel a bit sluggish, so a few times a day.
I refuse to take sugar, and I refuse to take caffeine. This is
because I find with Caffeine there is such a large amount of
euphoria, that often it makes you delusional about what you can
achieve, you tend to often pressume that you can get more done
than you actually physically can - it makes you set high goals
but then you try to rush to meet them without committing to the
process of just doing one task - bit by bit - at a time and seeing
what results in the end of it.
What I found is that, I have to take the creative drugs in order to
counteract the effects of the Modafinil, but I need the modafinil
in order to get that drive - that “get up and go” that drive to
consistently work.
What I’ve found is, the most important thing is just to be
consistent - don’t berate yourself, compare your success to
others, don’t think about your failures, or congratulate your
successes - as this really detracts from the things you're doing
that actually are making you move forwards and progress.
Success isn’t for everyone, just continue.
What ideas should you inject before you make
the subject - focus?
So we’ve covered the swings of mood and attention, the polar
positions of attention and creativeness and how these are in an
annoying swing. Now we just need to understand how we can
use it as effectively as possible.
So, in the case of pick up - you want a girl to think that you're
pretty attractive, pretty interesting, probably pretty smart and
switched on - but also the kind of guy who goes out there and
makes what he wants of the world. To achieve this might just
mean, acting cool, so stuff like;
- Touching the sides of her stomach.
- Holding your head up high when you speak.
- Being clear and succinct when delivering a point.
- Seeming open and honest
- Being charming, flirty.
- Being interesting and charismatic.
There is some scripts and lines that I use to make people feel
sexy, or to feel awesome about being with you.
One of these is the ‘First Date Metaphor’ where I say something
like the following - it’s to invoke, the response of making her
really excited to be speaking with you,
 “you know if you’ve ever waited outside the backdoors
of a concert before, or a theatre and you know you’re
about to meet someone famous, and for whatever reason
you suddenly feel as if you’re going to be completely
star struck and you won’t be able to calm yourself
down”.
 “You know when you’re going to go on a date for the
first time, and you get really excited…. And it feels like
you're just overwhelmed, that you won’t be able to
contain yourself, it might even feel as if this person
might be able to figure you out too easily or something
like you feel naked…
 “you feel so whether you should be taken over by the
emotion, or if you should just “give it a chance and see
how it goes and then you’ll discover the love as you
build the relationship… see hypnosis is kind of similar,
you can feel yourself responding, and maybe you focus
on it more and you respond more until you can’t help
yourself you just feel that way”.
So the above suggestion has been used in order to make the girl
have that kind of awe factor about you - because you’ve brought
up models of what its like to be ‘on top of the world’ like really
excited about meeting someone then her mind is going to start
preparing for this eventuality.
She will start responding to every emergent situation - as if - that
occasion has occurred - and as if she is meeting a celebrity - her
mind looks for situations and patterns that might resemble this
one - the meeting of the celebrity - so when you start acting -
really attractive - or - really cool, then automatically she is going
to be receiving responses that make her half think - “why do I
like this guy so much?”, “This guy is awesome” you know she
might not fully get their to thinking those thoughts in her head
as actual thoughts - but the template is there.
The contents of most peoples thoughts doesn’t usually consider
other people - we don’t really sit there and think about “That
guy is awesome” we more feel something about someone, and
we think how we can “how can I make him like me?” but
thoughts really are pretty rare, we probably don’t think that
many thoughts per day compared to how many other things we
do.
For example, when I’m writing and I’m in the flow - I really
don't think about it, I just write and sometimes i’m watching the
words on the screen - actually often I’m not even watching the
screen I’m looking into space not thinking about anything and
then I look down at the keyboard and I’m completely amazed
that my hands are typing words that I haven’t even thought
about - thats kind of the most idealized version of ‘being’.
And it’s actually completely possible to have entire days weeks
or months like this - where instead of you typing and doing it
without thinking and being able to write hundreds of thousands
of words a day - you can actually find this special balanced place
where you can just do anything all day and it will always be a
complete success - if you can actually get this flow going and
live on 2-4 hours sleep per night and keep working on producing
consistent output, with each second building on the last - i’m
convinced you could be mega successful in a handful of days.
I had these 11 days in July this year where for whatever reason I
discovered this flow - I’ve had this flow in little pieces before,
but I seemed to unde