Archive for March, 2012
This is for you technologists – programmers, systems guys, database dudes, and any other guy who deals with technology where predictable output results based on consistent input. Human beings are not computers. This goes especially for women. Yes, there are some generally consistent behaviors a man can expect from a women based on consistent input. But you will never get completely consistent output, ever.
I find it almost alarming when technologists start trying Charisma and quickly get frustrated because the results were not as predictable as they wanted. After all, technologists spend their working hours on technology that yields predictable results. Frankly, technologists usually suck at Charisma. Such failure is based on three fundamental reasons:
1. The confidence sub-routine is not functioning properly.
2. Social skills have not been developed.
3. Way too focused on predictable outcomes.
A dynamic social interaction with a woman (verbal conversation) is not a football game. There are no huddles, time-outs, or commercial breaks. Such an interaction is fluid and relatively unpredictable. Consider the basketball game as a better analogy. There are general strategies but the specific tactics at any given moment must change immediately for a team to be successful. After each play in football, everything stops, tactics are considered, plays are selected, and then the game resumes. Charisma doesn’t work like that. Imagine a basketball game where the teams huddle after each basket. It couldn’t work.
Fluid and successful social interactions amongst humans requires good social skills. If a man doesn’t communicate well in a general dynamic social interaction, he’s going to fail even with basic Charisma when dealing with women. This is where social skills become so vital. Technologists too often fail with social skills because of the sometimes unpredictable nature of human social interaction. In human beings, a certain degree of unpredictability is a feature, not a bug. Get used to it.
In order to de-program from the rigid consistency of technology, a technologist should completely re-adjust his thinking regarding dynamic social interactions with women. Don’t work on a specific outcome (she gives me her phone number), don’t work on a generalized outcome (she’s comfortable talking to me), forget outcomes entirely (who is she, again?). This will be extremely difficult for you techies, I know this. I have worked with techies every day for years.
In general, technologists should make a strong effort to get out from behind the computer monitor and actually interact with live human beings, regardless of gender and age. Humans are social creatures because we had to be in order to survive. Be social, be successful.
In one simple declaration, a piece of my blog anonymity almost came to an end:
You’re the Private Man.
It was bound to happen eventually. I won’t go into lurid details but one of my blog’s readers just happened to be sitting two bar-stools down at a local watering hole, my dog sitting on the stool between us. He was a friendly British guy and we were talking about dogs and some other inconsequential stuff. That’s when he hit me with that phrase.
I was absolutely stunned. I was so stunned that I forgot a good deal of the conversation we had. The beer didn’t help. Hopefully the reader can fill me in when I run into him again.
We talked a bit and I immediately got rather paranoid. Did this guy search me out? Did he have some ulterior motive? The Southern Poverty Law Center has only recently given the Manosphere some attention, after all (no linkage from me). We talked more. Nope, he’s just yet another Manosphere reader quite familiar with Manosphere blogs.
He promised to keep my identity and blog a secret from anyone in the village where I live. Thanks, reader, I do appreciate it. But dammit, I forgot his name! The next day, I asked the bartender if the British fellow was a regular and she told me that yes, this guy lives here and frequents that particular bar. His sitting next to me was indeed a coincidence.
It’s hard to say that having readers in my small village is significant to me or the Manosphere. Perhaps my blog’s reach is wider than I had previously thought. Or, perhaps my village attracts the type of guy who would gravitate to the Manosphere and the subjects covered by all the blogs here.
I am going to be quite circumspect about posting any more personal information about me, however. Because of Julie, I’ve already hidden one post and have decided against posting another one that’s already written. She knows that I blog but I won’t tell her how to find it. It’s not much of an issue, yet.
Carry on with your bad selves.
While it should be obvious, it’s worth reinforcing…
- Women are the gatekeepers to sexuality
- Men are the gatekeepers to commitment
- A woman needs to respect a man
- A man needs to impress a woman
- Women have choices
- Men have obligations
- The feminine attracts the masculine
- The masculine attracts the feminine
- Women create life
- Men sustain life
- Women work
- Men work harder
- Women preen and plot
- Men just plot
- Women respond emotionally
- Men respond logically
- Women love conditionally
- Men love unconditionally
- Women are told to “never settle”
- Men are told to “settle down”
- Women often age like milk
- Men often age like wine
- Women follow
- Men lead
- Women shop
- Men buy
I know the standard response… “generalize much?”. Of course I do, we’re not all special snowflakes.
This excellent email arrived recently:
I’ve been reading your blog regularly since its inception and enjoy your posts. We are kindred spirits, what with you approaching 50 [I'm now 50 - ed.] and myself having spent almost 54 years on this ball of dust we call home. I’ve noticed, in my study of charisma/game, that on first blush it appears to be a young man’s sport. In fact, on some forums it would appear the “players” regard themselves as over the hill after the ripe old age of 35. But as you and I both know, inside of every young buck is an older gentleman who will eventually get out. And, as we also know, some men of a certain age refuse to accept anything less than a willing woman of a significantly lesser age. This begs the question: how low can an older guy go?
The reader’s email goes on to describe his preferences in women and his relationship expectations (no LTR, just “dating”). He also describes himself because he knows he must bring something to the table. In summary, he’s tall, fit, dresses well, and [insert drum roll]… he’s an emergency room doctor.
That’s right, he’s a physician.
He also sent a couple of photos that shows he’s not a bad-looking gentleman, full head of grayish hair and nothing terrible about his face.
The conventional wisdom states that a guy should never chase women younger than half his age plus seven years. Here’s some unconventional wisdom: A guy should pursue any adult woman whom he can catch, regardless of age. When a middle-age gent is seen with a much younger and attractive woman, it says to the world he has value to [insert drum roll]… younger and attractive women. Sure, women his own age will heap derision on him and his “dates” (Fiona, please pick up the white courtesy phone), but that is not relevant to his romantic life. Nothing says social proof more than a young, attractive woman on a man’s arm.
On the surface, this guy has all the qualifications to be a true silver fox with younger women. If he has real Charisma, he could certainly be successfully pursuing women in their late 20s. His Charisma must be really, really tight – from appearance to personal interactions with everyone. His confidence must be totally bullet proof. Most important of all, he must be completely and utterly outcome independent with women. His demeanor and frame must be based on knowing that there is a complete female abundance at his beck and call.
As a doctor, he’ll get a fair share of gold-diggers but as he’s not looking for a long-term relationship, he just has to be careful about batshit crazy girls. All the women he “dates” will likely think they can score a commitment from him. Men are the gatekeepers to commitment. Given his profession, a scorned batshit crazy woman could truly wreak havoc on his life.
For the record, Charisma is not just a young man’s game. It must be applied to any man who wants to have successful relationships with women in his life, regardless of age.
When a woman is really into a man, she will compliment him. Receiving a compliment from a woman is a great thing, especially if the attraction and comfort is mutual. Receiving compliments can also be a bit problematic because how does a man with confidence and Charisma respond and still maintain solid, confident frame? The compliment must be, at the very least, acknowledged. A “thank you” works just fine but it’s a seriously missed opportunity to establish or maintain confident frame.
Returning the compliment is usually considered good form (“you’re cool, too”) but it smacks of supplication. I’m not going to get all cynical and say that compliments to a man are just a cheap tactic for a woman to receive a compliment in return. A woman deeply attracted to a man will give honest compliments and expect nothing in return. However, watch out for a woman fishing for compliments, that’s a shit test.
One answer to the compliment response lies at the opposite end of the spectrum when a woman delivers a mild or rather non-serious insult. Standard Charisma dictates the “agree and amplify” in this situation.
“Oh, you’re such a jerk” says a woman to man she finds attractive but won’t let herself admit it.
My standard response is to agree and amplify with this come-back:
“I know I am. My father was a jerk, my grandfather was a jerk, but his father was a complete ass.”
It usually works.
The same tactic can be applied to a compliment.
A woman says, “You’re really cool.”
An agree and amplify response would be, “I know I am. My father was cool, my grandfather was cool, but his father was awesome.”
There is a whole range of funny and confident responses:
- Just cool? I’m super extraordinarily cool!
- Cool is my middle name
- Chuck Norris learned his coolness from me
All these responses are quite cocky. They are also so over-the-top as to be humorous. That’s good. Women are attracted to confident, funny men. Receiving a compliment is one of the best verbal indicators of interest from a woman. The agree and amplify response serves to maintain attraction, even if comfort is well established.
There are other possible responses that aren’t so over the top but still work to establish or maintain frame:
- It took you this long to notice?
- The coolness medication must be working. I need to thank my doctor.
- What, I’m not hot? [That'll confuse 'em nicely]
Follow up the compliment response with a physical sign of affection. A good kiss is perfect.
There is an important consideration. These responses must be delivered effortlessly. An enormous part of having good Charisma is being able to understand and act/react to the rhythm and flow of a conversation. For a man not versed in the art of good conversation and voice control, such responses may absolutely blow up in his face with clumsy awkwardness. A man not so verbally adroit or confident should use the standard “Thank you” or some variation thereof.
I was chatting online with Danny the other day. I mentioned to him that each time I hear a woman talk about a guy involved with a much younger woman, I always support the guy in the situation. “How old?… I want to be like that guy.” That sets the tone of the conversation and my frame.
Danny took it a few steps forward:
I SLAMMED a 43-year-old woman a few weeks ago. she overheard me teaching Red Pill stuff to a 22-year-old dude and chimed in, “son, please tell me you aren’t buying into his bullshit.”
I asked her how many cats she had and she gave me a MEAN look. I showed the guy a pic of a stripper, “she 23.”
His eyes got wide and the woman said, “boy, you have no idea what I could do to you.”
I BLASTED her, “yeah, i’m trading in my caddy for a geo metro.” Even the bartender was cracking up. She had no reply.
I told her, “the sad thing is, you’re actually pretty, but that attitude of yours is gonna keep you and 10 cats VERY single.”
Danny nuked her hamster.
I propose a new Manosphere phrase: “Nuking the hamster”. This is when a man has to directly confront a woman’s rationalization hamster and knock it out off its wheel with carefully constructed words and phrases. It’s an insult, to be sure. But it’s an insult that wields Red Pill wisdom and is not just some random put-down.
Nuking the hamster can be very direct:
“You’re not attractive enough to expect George Clooney to interrupt his schedule.”
“Yo, Princess, get over yourself, you don’t deserve Prince Charming.”
It can also be much more subtle:
“How many cats do you have?”
Nuking the hamster will very likely end the conversation. The response will likely be anger, annoyance at the very least. Nuking the hamster is not Charisma, it is certainly impolite and strictly reserved for hopeless women who simply refuse to understand that they must bring something to the dating/relationship table.