Violation Theory

[Lovedrop]

I never posted this because I never cleaned it up - these are raw notes.

But since it was requested on this board, I'll post it here and perhaps you guys can derive some use from it.

Basically it's a thought-exploration of anti-slut defense, plausible deniability, social norms, being unreactive and plowing, and baiting and frame control. Again, I apologize for how raw these notes are - maybe we'll get some interesting discussion. Or maybe it's all a bunch of bullshit. Violation theory to me showed hints of usefulness but never fully gelled in terms of technique.

-Lovedrop

===============

Craig once said that “It’s Always On.” My thoughts on this (why it is true) are,

While gaming, whenever escalation is possible, continue escalating AS A RULE. Ignore her non-committal behavior; she WILL act non-committal in order to handle her own ASD. She has to do this (explained below.) Just continue to plow in a non-needy way.

Women will act non-committal due to the sexual non-responsibility rule (a.k.a ASD), but subject to appropriate gaming they will continue to display passive IOIs such as allowing the gaming to continue, and allowing escalation (but acting like it's weird in order to avoid responsibility/ASD.)

Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up, like she thinks you're being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn't contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being "a bitch" and they say "whatever fuck it then, I don't care" when they actually could have kept plowing and got the girl.

This is interesting because ASD theory thus predicts the necessity of plowing. Plowing is also the accepted solution to token resistance, which is itself merely a more energetic form of this same passive IOI mechanism. Thus Token Resistance can be interpreted as an IOI. If she feels it necessary to begin avoiding responsibility for something that she feels inside, and she telegraphs this feeling via token resistance behavior, can’t we then take it as an indicator?


Some new terms:

Predictive Resistance: This is similar to token resistance, except she volunteers it without prompting. (Usually token resistance is thought of as a RESPONSE to some compliance test from the player.) Example: “I hope you know we’re not having sex tonight.” Why would she say this unless she is feeling ASD? And if I am not currently escalating, how does she feel ASD? Because she is getting excited and thus feels the need to avoid responsibility for it. This is how ASD gets activated. This is also WHY we have traditionally known that predictive resistance is actually an IOI from the girl. Girls don't say that sort of thing to beggars on the street. They say it to hot guys when they are sitting on their couch together.

This is also why false disqualifiers work…because they eliminate her need to avoid responsibility and thus DEACTIVATE ASD.

Plowing is necessary yet so is flipping the script. You must do both.

Indicators: There are IOIs and IODs. Are there also IOQs? Ie indicator of qualification. If there are reliable indicators for various other aspects of the game, such as the above-described “passive ioi / asd” indicator then perhaps we can improve intuitive accuracy. There must be entire classes of indicators and common confusions that occur.



====================

Eventually she opened up when I was just being myself and having fun,
***being persistent and smiling was key.

Formula: Due to previously discussed "act like you’re weird but give passive IOIs" mechanism, smile (relaxed, no big deal, being myself, unreactive) while plowing (90% rule) and using positive misinterpretation. Actually just viewing everything through the most positive frame possible.

This still gives room for routines (such as an opening stack) and calibration (such as negs and kino plowing.)

Everything else still applies…use DHVs, use false disqualifiers, kino escalate, get investment and qualify her, etc.
=====

TRY sarging from the frame of mingling, or spidering, where you're not necessarily trying to pickup but only trying to meet high-value people and add them to your social circle.

ALSO try doing this but ALSO doing pickup as well. Doing jealousy, etc.

=====

Violation theory / ethics

Often we can violate social norms in the field, for the sake of practice or experimentation, and this is part of the learning process. In fact this is important for learning more about how social interaction really works, and we must feel dispassionate. But in the long term, we still must be aware of social norms and how they affect our game - we have to "surf the wave" and think intelligently about how to exploit these mechanisms, and not hide behind an "I don't give a fuck" attitude. This becomes ESPECIALLY RELEVANT when you begin to focus more on social circle game and less on cold approach game. You only live once!

When someone comes in your set, and is nice to you, without making social errors, then you are a violator if you are rude or cruel to him. If his frame is really weak, then he will still lose. But if he has a strong frame and is unreactive, then he will win, since YOU are the one who is in violation. You are the one who was being mean.

Conversely, if you go into someone else's set, and you are nice, without making social errors, then the set is under a certain social obligation to show basic politeness. They can't just ignore you. At this point you can just plow.

Why is this important? Because this ethical rule seems to be in operation socially, whether people see it or not. And because there is power to be derived: There is no longer any social obligation to be polite once someone has become a violator. If you enter a guy's set politely, and the guy is rudely amoging you without provocation, he is a violator and you can now just ignore him like he's not there. The more he reacts after that, the more his value drops while yours goes up. You couldn't have previously ignored him if he hadn't been rude - since that would have turned YOU into a violator.

There has been an important question related to AMOG tactics for a while now. The question is, if I am AMOGing the guy, aren't I becoming more and more reactive to him, thus giving him power? AMOG lines are cool, but "less is more"…etc. Calibration is important:
--- You can just AMOG him. You MUST calibrate that he will knuckle under your frame before you attempt this.
--- If you miscalibrate and he retains a strong frame and positive attitude, then he wins. You are now in violation and he can ignore you.
--- Instead of attacking him, you can BAIT him to try to AMOG you. (People have previously used these terms interchangeably, but I am now suggesting that there is a difference.) If he does, he is now a violator and you can ignore him. Most people will fall for this, this is why classical AMOG theory works. This is the mechanism being exploited. If he doesn't take the bait, you are still in the game since you only baited and you never actually violated. But you lost a little "social energy". The more obvious it becomes that you are baiting him, the more you are REACTING to him. The less he takes the bait, the more YOU are becoming REACTIVE to HIM.

[Lovedrop]

A piece of violation theory (or "ethical theory") thus becomes the ability to bait people into making social errors. People will often hang themselves without your help. Other people need some rope. If you can bait people into violating (or DLVing which I think is slightly different. A DLV is a social error but a social error is not a DLV.) If you can bait people into violating, then the rules now apply: I can ignore the person without become a violator myself. My value will continue to rise and his will continue to drop. This will also generate attraction in nearby females. Useful?
I think that girls are really good at this. Stupid girls just violate (they can get away with some degree of this but they lose power as a result). But girls with social skills will bait other people to violate. Or even worse: set a double-bind frame and so NO MATTER what you do, you just hung yourself.

This is interesting as well: if she sets a double-bind frame where I will lose, and I don't come up with a good comeback (reframe), then I will also lose. The fact that I was silent subcommunicates that I couldn’t think of a good response, making me the loser in the battle of the wits. It is also implicitly interpreted by her that her frame must have been correct, that I AM a violator, and that I had nothing to say in my own defense. She can now ignore me AND continue dropping my value if I stick around (due to violation theory.)

POSITIVE MISINTERPRETATION
This shows why frame control is so important, why I must always have a good answer to a shit test. She is baiting me to disqualify myself. And not only must I have a good answer, but I must be totally friendly and nice and unreactive. Even if she is non-responsive, or acts like I'm weird, or challenges me, I mustn't be rude, unfriendly, or angry/reactive, because that is exactly what she is baiting me to do. For the sole purpose of making me a VIOLATOR so that she can blow me out without becoming a violator herself. Notice that when your value is low, girls will get really impatient and try to pick fights so that they have moral justification to blow you out. Girls will also do this when they want to end a relationship. Again, this all stems from the "no responsibility" rule.

How to get to her WITHOUT VIOLATING.
--- Be friendly and nice, without "crossing that line" of being mean to someone, while simultaneously plowing and interpreting everything in a positive way. Do NOT get reactive or you lose. Just act like nothing is a big deal, keep plowing and being yourself, and don't violate social norms.
--- Neg. Perhaps this is why Negs have been so hard to understand. I can define a neg as something that conveys disinterest, while simultaneously NOT crossing a violation line. If I say, "I hate you, you fucking bitch" then I have conveyed disinterest. But I have also disqualified myself by violating. Now I'm creepy and people can ignore me without feeling guilty. She's looking to screen me out anyway, early on especially, so I basically just made it easy for her. (Some guys walk away from this sort of thing saying, "Whatever, I don't care. I really don't give a fuck." It's good to not give a fuck. But that attitude should be combined with the social intelligence not to make social errors and get yourself disqualified. We are playing to win, so don't deliberately hang yourself. People WILL give you the rope - watch out for it. They are baiting you.)
Negs allow me to do very useful things (frame control, false disqualifiers, emotional stimulation, comfort building, value subcommunication) while simultaneously NOT crossing the violation boundary and getting disqualified. I'm still friendly and unreactive. I'm not a violator. And as long as I keep plowing, she can't blow me out.

This may be what people are talking about when they say that people can't blow them out of set anymore.

Ways that SHE will try to BAIT YOU to violate
--- Her friend runs over and they scream and hug. Now they have created a new shared frame together. If I bust in, in a reactive way, I am now a violator. If I stand there like a dork, I feel stupid and start to panic. The social pressure is building on me…I can't leave and I can't stay. Eventually I slink away. Notice that Mystery's solution FOLLOWS SOCIAL NORMS: First you cut your thread (appropriate) then you ask the target to introduce the obstacle (appropriate)
--- Her friend is rude to you. You are rude to her friend. Now the target can treat you like a violator and it's "not her fault." Don't take the bait.
--- "Well thanks for coming over to say hi, it was really nice to meet you."
--- "Um, we haven't seen each other in a long time, we're having a really important conversation right now."
--- These are interesting because now if I stay, I am a violator EVEN IF I CONTINUE TO BE NICE. They have set the frame that merely being there makes me a violator. In my experience, the best solution here is a massive value demonstrator combined with a false disqualifier: "Oh we're actually on our way over to Skybar, I just wanted to stop and say hi first…" (stack forward.) ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS?
--- Another suggestion for this, of course, is to come in with massive value and a false time constraint in the FIRST PLACE, so they don't bait me in this way. For example, you get a lot less of this bullshit if you have first been building your value in the room, for example by parading a hot girl around. Ever notice that the other sets open easier once you have been parading a hot girl around?

[Lovedrop]

Interesting: When Mystery handles an interrupt, he reminds the target that it's "the polite thing to do" to introduce him to the obstacle. Now she has to do it, she would be a VIOLATOR if she didn't. So she does. Interesting that she can PRETEND she didn't think of it and absolve herself of responsibility. If she leaves you standing there and you eventually leave, it's still "not her fault." But once you make it explicit that she’s being rude, now she HAS to follow social norms, so she does. There are thus cases where you can use your knowledge of social norms to force people to comply with them where they might normally pretend they didn't notice. This is why social norms are so interesting - because people DO follow them, whether they have full knowledge of them or not. But having that knowledge gives you an edge.
--- Also interesting: If I explicitly voice a secret society rule or understanding, I HAVE committed a violation. BUT I can act as if I didn't notice it and still get away with it. Other people nearby can ignore it and it will go away. But if someone says "but of course" he is pointing that that I am a violator, that I have made explicit something that people prefer to assume. This is because people like to act Secret Society, without being made RESPONSIBLE for it, by pretending they don't know. When I point it out explicitly, they can no longer pretend, and thus they are forced to deny their own behavior and to pay lip service to social programming. I have become a PARTY POOPER - a VIOLATOR. I have already fucked up. But by saying "but of course" the person has now made my fuckup clear and my lack of social intelligence is now evident. DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SECRET SOCIETY. Remember one of the rules of the Secret Society is that you don't talk about it. Talking about it implies that you aren't familiar with the rule, and thus you must NOT BE A MEMBER.
--- Thus the strategy should always be to ASSUME the secret society is true, and escalate accordingly, while simultaneously pretending that it's not true and also paying lip service to the typical social programming.

--- The phrase "it'd be rude not to." This phrase absolves yourself of responsibility by implying that you would be a violator if you did anything else. Remember, people can't blame you if there is a higher authority. This phrase uses social norms as a higher authority.
--- Interesting that the phrase can ALSO be used in cases where it's NOT LOGICALLY TRUE, but will still have the same effect regardless. The more obvious it becomes that the phrase is actually not appropriate, the more funny it becomes when you use the phrase. What is the tie-in here with humor?

Are there ways to get rid of someone WITHOUT using violation theory?
--- can't think of one

This could be really important.

Some general principles:
--- Don't ever violate a social norm since it causes you to lose power. (Unless you are doing some specific practice or experimentation.) Always keep the "high ground" morally. Always be unreactive, friendly - and plow.
--- If someone BAITS you, continue to be unreactive, friendly, and plow.
--- If someone VIOLATES you, you can now AMOG and IGNORE him without becoming a violator. Ignore is preferable since it is less reactive. A single good AMOG line can be useful as well depending on context.
--- You can also BAIT someone into violating. If he takes the bait, he is now a violator and the above now applies.
--- If he doesn't take the bait, then calibrate: Can you bait him again? If you keep it up, he will gain an edge because you are reacting slightly more. The most you can do beyond this is just be unreactive, friendly, plow, and ignore him as much as possible without going into violation.
--- If you can calibrate that the person has a weak frame, you can just violate him and retain the stronger frame. But beware: now all of his friends, some of whom may be socially more intelligent than him, can ignore you and get away with it.


Back to this paragraph:
Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up a bit, like she thinks you're being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn't contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being "a bitch" and they say "whatever fuck it then, I don't care" when they actually could have kept plowing.

What's really going on is that she uses her facial expression to set a frame that you are weird. This absolves her of responsibility of what is happening (so she can allow it to continue.) Unfortunately, this also baits the PLAYER to become a violator. "I'm not BEING weird, but she's ACTING like I'm weird. What a BITCH!" If you aren't socially intelligent, you will take the "bait" that she was "rude" to you, and thus you will be rude back to her. Once you do this:
--- IN YOUR MIND: She was rude for no reason, therefore I was rude back. Whatever. Fuck her. I don't care. Women are bitches.
--- IN HER MIND: I didn't do anything wrong. He was being weird to me and then he was being rude to me so I filtered him out. Just another loser.

A guy with a stronger frame will remain unreactive to her bait and friendly, and will never go into violation and won't get screened out. He can't get blown out. Now all he has to do is continue stimulating her emotions and DHVing. The best part is that the unreactive, friendly part is a DHV in-and-of-itself.

So she is selecting for strength. Is she trying to blow me out or trying to get with me? BOTH. One or the other will work, either outcome is fine with her. It's not her fault either way. I COULD interpret that she is blowing me out, and I'd be RIGHT. I could get all reactive about this. Or I COULD interpret that it is ON and that she is testing for strength. And I would be RIGHT in this case as well. It is my own value and my own subcommunications that determine which way she will interpret it. NOT --- HER --- FAULT.


Other concepts:
Different violations, and different baits, have differing levels of plausible deniability.
Some violations only exist if they are pointed out ("Introduce me to your friend, it's the polite thing to do.")
Some baits are more or less reactive. If it isn't obvious that I'm baiting ("thanks for stopping by!") then I retain plausible deniability while simultaneously forcing the person to become a violator if they stay. I don't come off as reactive. If it IS obvious that I'm baiting ("oh that's a really nice coat you got there. You from the CIRCUS?") then I'm also perceived as more reactive. If I continue baiting in this way I will become the more reactive one and eventually lose. This is why, when AMOGing, "less is more." I gave myself less plausible deniability.
--- Always maximize my own plausible deniability, and that of my target, while minimizing that of rival players and AMOGs.

“Can I have a light?” is a great opener (I got the idea from Christophe). It ties in here because it’s a socially reasonable request, and makes the person look like a jerk if they don’t give you compliance. This is why it’s better to use small hoops early on…because the smaller the hoop, the more of a violator the person appears to be if they defy.

[gamble]

so I just read the thread.. all of it. I want to let it marinate a bit and reread it. I'll post after that.

[Rich]

I like it,

Same here interesting. I think it's giving me an idea, i'll have to re-read some theorie later and then i'll post a better responce. I'm always for the next best thing.

Cheers,

Rich.

PS: Who doesn't enjoy testing theorie, I know I do. ;)

PPS: Would I be able to post this on my own foruum under exp theorie?

[Tha Gangsta]

I read part 1 of 3 and part of 2. It sounds, to me, like the Violation Theory is a break down of how to AMOG and deal with AMOGs properly. I'll have to continue reading, but am I right so far from what I have read?

OG

[*** Mathew Stone ***]

This post is packed w/ value, thanks for posting LD.

Best,
Mathew Stone

[Superfreak]

If I am reading this correctly I think I get it. Basically either due to her not wanting to appear to easy to her friends or her friends trying to protect her when they see that she is a little uncomfortable due to ASD response (mixed signals) either she offers resistance or her friends offer resistance by hugging or trying to pull her away. Then what you are saying is to plow but keep enough active disinterest to stay in set without appearing odd or giving off a weird vibe to her or the set. While trying to get her to DLV so that you maintain or increase in social value long enough to wear down her resistance. Least that is my take on what was written, I could be off base though.

Now if what I posted was close, one strategy that works well from the start is to use stealth or covert kino. I will do a separate posting on it, but basically its like a basketball screen play. Most of the kino escalation is somewhat hidden from the set unless you are doing a routine. This is done to make it less socially awkward for her. There are built in tricks to judge her readiness and if she shows resistance to counter it into a push. So that you can later pull her back in. Then at some point if someone in the set trys to do an interrupt. Or goes to block isolation then using the covert Kino you can actually turn the girl to box the interrupt out while you continue. Add in an able wing man and you should be able to plow through most resistance.

Now if my understanding of the theory is correct another way would be to hijack the set. Basically step back the escalation to the target and box her out of the set. That way she has to work to get back into the set. Which will cause her to DLV. Or at the least push push pull the target.

Anyways like I said I could have been way off on my understanding of the theory in the first place.

Another thing I have noticed at least some of the time is that when the friend interrupts or trys to block it is because you are not gaming them. This can be the case when you are gaming on target and another member of the set is validating as well. You can test this by saying your targets name and then messing up the other girls name on purpose.

[Mastery]

OG: I think it goes beyond AMOGing. My understanding from the post is, a key to running a tight set is not committing any violations (or, getting away with your violations, but better not to commit them at all). Violations are what cause you to get blown out, so if you don't commit them, you're immune to blowouts.

Questions

--- The phrase "it'd be rude not to." This phrase absolves yourself of responsibility by implying that you would be a violator if you did anything else. Remember, people can't blame you if there is a higher authority. This phrase uses social norms as a higher authority.
Never used this phrase before. Just to understand the context it is used, do you mean: Say she asks you to do something eg "pass me my purse" - if you don't it could be a violation, but if you do then you seem submissive - so you pass her the purse but also say "it'd be rude not to" to take care of both situations?

--- Interesting that the phrase can ALSO be used in cases where it's NOT LOGICALLY TRUE, but will still have the same effect regardless. The more obvious it becomes that the phrase is actually not appropriate, the more funny it becomes when you use the phrase. What is the tie-in here with humor?
Do you mean, say she makes some unreasonable request like "come pick me up at my house and also bring me a dozen roses and while you're on the way drop by the store and bring me some biscuits for my cat" - in that context, a good funny response is "it'd be rude not to"?


--- Also interesting: If I explicitly voice a secret society rule or understanding, I HAVE committed a violation. BUT I can act as if I didn't notice it and still get away with it. Other people nearby can ignore it and it will go away. But if someone says "but of course" he is pointing that that I am a violator, that I have made explicit something that people prefer to assume. This is because people like to act Secret Society, without being made RESPONSIBLE for it, by pretending they don't know. When I point it out explicitly, they can no longer pretend, and thus they are forced to deny their own behavior and to pay lip service to social programming. I have become a PARTY POOPER - a VIOLATOR. I have already fucked up. But by saying "but of course" the person has now made my fuckup clear and my lack of social intelligence is now evident. DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SECRET SOCIETY. Remember one of the rules of the Secret Society is that you don't talk about it. Talking about it implies that you aren't familiar with the rule, and thus you must NOT BE A MEMBER.
--- Thus the strategy should always be to ASSUME the secret society is true, and escalate accordingly, while simultaneously pretending that it's not true and also paying lip service to the typical social programming.

Say I tell this story in set (the purpose is to subcommunicate that I don't kiss and tell): the story is about how I met this girl and had a ONS, then we didn't see each other for a few weeks. Then one day a friend told me he heard I slept with that girl, and I was furious because I didn't tell anyone so it must have been the girl - and I hate it when people kiss and tell.

Is this considered "explicitly voicing a secret society understanding", hence a violation?

Also on the topic of secret society:

Another routine I wanted to test is, let's say I'm playing the question game and she asks how many girls I've slept with. I say X (not high, not low) and she says wow (pretending like it's high, even though she's probably slept with more). I say "that's not high, many of my female friends have had much more... of course that's not what they tell most people, because some people are very judgemental." (The purpose is to subcommunicate I'm non-judgemental and my female friends trust me with their secrets, ie I'm secret society.)

Is this also considered "explicitly voicing a secret society understanding", hence a violation?

And if the above examples are secret society violations, then how DO you actually subcommunicate that you're a secret society member? (Examples please?)


Back to this paragraph:
Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up a bit, like she thinks you're being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn't contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it.

What's really going on is that she uses her facial expression to set a frame that you are weird. This absolves her of responsibility of what is happening (so she can allow it to continue.) Unfortunately, this also baits the PLAYER to become a violator.

A guy with a stronger frame will remain unreactive to her bait and friendly, and will never go into violation and won't get screened out. He can't get blown out. Now all he has to do is continue stimulating her emotions and DHVing. The best part is that the unreactive, friendly part is a DHV in-and-of-itself.

In this situation, is it a good idea to point out her weird expression? I remember reading a post by Chariot (RSD) a while ago where he'll point out "she's giving me the sniper look" and make fun of it (haven't had the chance to test it myself). Is that too reactive (actually I don't really understand what "unreactive" really means)?

Or should I instead just keep telling stories as if I don't notice her weird expression, until she opens up? (I find this difficult to do because whenever I've tried in the past, there's a feeling in my gut like I'm doing something socially "wrong" - I guess this is "social pressure"?)

[Superfreak]

Ahh just reread, it all again think I finally wrapped my brain around what you are saying. Its like a line drawn in the sand. You are on your side of the social line and her or the CB are on theirs. As long as you do not cross that social line and she or the CB are still trying to bait you to cross it then that is seen as an IOI on her part or a bait and trap on the CB's part. As long as you do not fall for it and do not cross that line then it is game on. Obviously my Line in the sand is over simplified and the point is to make them DLV by being the one to cross the line (Violate the social boundary) But you can not taught them across the line without possibly stepping over it as well. So they hang themselves socially once they have stepped over the line.


"Another routine I wanted to test is, let's say I'm playing the question game and she asks how many girls I've slept with. I say X (not high, not low) and she says wow (pretending like it's high, even though she's probably slept with more). I say "that's not high, many of my female friends have had much more... of course that's not what they tell most people, because some people are very judgemental."

Not keen yet on the multi quote part but in response to the above quote to me this is one of those questions that has no real answers. Kinda like Does my ass look fat in these jeans category. So the way I usually answer is with a high #. Like this: Including you 2537 girls with a smile and said in C&F fashion. then just throw out the next question

[Tha Gangsta]

You're right, Mastery. It does go well beyond AMOGing. I had only read the first part and, while he does get in to fighting past ASD, there was also a good amount of how to "AMOG the AMOG" if you will. I'll have to finish reading it, but my contacts are out of whack. It might take a while.

But thanks for clearing that up.

OG

[daredevil]

Wow! Lovedrop, you are incredible at breaking down (yours and) Mystery's game for us.

This is advanced stuff, and truly refined. I always saw like an air of politeness embedded in Mystery's game...And you have blown it right open in understanding this concept.

Thank you Lovedrop & Mystery!

However how do you account for his Ballsier openers (eg "Do you know why you SUCK??") to SHBs?

I assume then that, using violation theory, had the SHB remained calm and level headed (instead of the instant shocked feeling), she would have been able to find a choice of words or actions that would have instantly lowered his value enough to ignore him(making him the violator), instead of letting him in...??

-x- Daredevil -x-

[Odyssey]

I've read the whole thing. pure gold.

I guess being the violater is that akward feeling you feel when your amoging startegy didn't worked out. If I look back to the times my AMOG'ing didn't succeed, I always was the violater.

Great insight and thanks for sharing this!
I hope this will be included in the new e-book you guy's are writing!

OD

[daredevil]

Lovedrop,

Conversely, if you go into someone else's set, and you are nice, without making social errors, then the set is under a certain social obligation to show basic politeness. They can't just ignore you.

But they CAN and sometimes DO IGNORE. EVEN if you're polite and make no social errors...But there lies the crux of the statement..

There's no doubt as to the theory being correct, but in this case, it must be that JUST approaching can be interpreted as a violation/social error, as rejection by the whole group DOES sometimes happen... And as you wrote:
There is no longer any social obligation to be polite once someone has become a violator
Because, lets face it, being approached by a strange guy when you've gone out to spend time with your friends IS socially unusual, even if just a tiny bit, and there is definitely a little pressure on them to be nice back, so im interested to know how is it that this sometimes occurs from a social ethics perspective?

But as you also wrote:
Different violations, and different baits, have differing levels of plausible deniability.

I agree - its definitely a Spectrum. There are levels of violation and social acceptability, rather than an on/off switch.

Anyway, I'd LOVE to read your analysis and break-down examples of your and Mystery's routines/recent interactions!

Thanks again,

-x- Daredevil -x-

By the way, WHERE's Mystery?

[Crash]

i like the whole theory.

daredevil: i don't think that opening can be viewed as an act of violation as there may always be a socially appropriate reason for your approach (you need a lighter, you want to know the song name, you wanna know where the bathroom is etc). even if they're really there to talk to each other (the two friends that haven't seen each other in months), they are still obliged to give you the choice of violating or conforming to social ethics (staying or leaving).

i'm thinking that what this theory describes is actually being a real gentleman. someone who doesn't buy drinks for her because he tries to buy her approval, but someone who has a profound knowledge of social standards and etiquette that he just "does the right thing". it all comes down to your frame.

the only thing that somehow doesn't fit into all of this theory are negs.
no matter how smooth your neg is, it still has to be noticed as a slip of your social judgement, otherwise it has no effect (ever negged someone who was dumb and she didn't even get that you were negging her?).

so if you're saying "nice nails, are they real?", you're "social game" has slipped. you don't do this when you're polite. she'll think "no, he didn't just say that, it's inappropriate, even if it's true."

same goes with blowing your nose in front of her without excusing yourself (sniper neg).

now i know that negs work if used correctly. but i somehow can't fit them into the system. lovedrop, would you mind explaining this a little more? thank you.

[RobLaughter]

From a quick skim, this looks a lot like Expectancy Violations Theory, a real-world communications topic. I once wrote an extensive post on EVT and the Elaboration Likelihood Model for mASF, but scrapped the idea because I didn't like how I tied it to pickup. Decent job here, though.

[Scythe42]

My thoughts on this topic:

Basically it is Expectancy Violation Theory. But when analyzing interactions a bit more in details, it might be a good idea to do it from an Interaction Adaption Theory point of view and treat violations as part of it. Violations cannot explain social interactions alone. Especially not when it comes down to game.

If you see things from a Violation Theory point of view, meaning a person is only aware about his expectations to a social interaction when these expectations are violated, you are missing out a lot of informaton and therefore possibilities to enhance your game. It is clear that we interpret the messages others send based on how we expect other to behave in a social setting. But we also adapt to a communication partner and especially to the social setting.

Violations can be a powerful tool for setting up an AMOG to fall into a trap and trick him into making a social error. In addition violations can be used to being perceived different on the first impression. In that case you don't really violate the social rules but bend them a bit. Negs are a good example for this. Whenever bending the rules you need a strong frame for supporting it.

Expectancy Violations Theory is also used for in the day game teachings of Pickup 101. They recommend using a "pre-opener" for day game, meaning starting the social interaction with something that's expected when a player approaches a target before continuing with ones usual game routine. It's basically making an individual feel more comforable of being cold approached by a stranger, when they are not in the mood for a social interaction. This is often the case when cold approaching a target on the street during day time.

Also confrontational game (some might call it direct game) makes use of violating social expectancies with the goal of being perceived different than the masses and with more self confidence. Even when violating an expectiation you are not always making a critical mistake. This is where adaption theory comes into play.

Another application of Expectancy Violations Theory can be found in Radical Honesty. People are usually not fully honest, therefore being radical honest violates the social expectancy of being polite. It's a matter of technique doing it right. Being a violator or just bending the rules is a subtle but important difference. You can get away with any violation as long as you make it appear to comply with the social rules, even if what you are saying really doesn't.

To quote Miller on that: “The impact of the violation will depend on two factors; the evaluation of the violation itself and your assessment of the person who committed the violation.”

But what about the already mentioned Interaction Adaptation Theory?

This newer theory for interpersonal communication suggests that a predictor of how you interact with others is your tendency to adapt what others are doing (call it calibration if you want). This is very important. Not everything is perceived by violations only and commiting a violation doesn't mean game over right away. Remember the "weird look" you mentioned and that one should continue to plow? This is adaptation theory. You understood what was going on in her mind and reacted accordingly to it.

You might have violated a social expectation and got a weird look. But still the target is interested in you and sends out a passive IOI. It's now up to you. Can you handle the situation? Can you adapt to it?

Especially nonverbal cues like interactional synchrony play an important role in Interaction Adaptation Theory (especially for providing comfort to a person). Adaption Theory deals a lot with nonverbals like the "weird look" you mentioned as an example. It also deals with Kinesics, in some publications by analyzing examples of courtship behavior. Any player should get a good college text book about adaptation theory. Really improves the eye for subtle cues and your social understading and therefore improves the ability of being in control of a sitation.

And to make it complete, I should mention the Emotional Contagion Theory, which simply suggest that emotional expression is contagions. Anyone should now this from laughter.

Take this three theories and apply them to your game and you will smoothen out a lot of small issues. It's about understanding what's going on in your communication partner.

[Mojo]

I’ve seen this theory manifest itself in my gaming :)


Here is a real world example using violation theory

If brief, gaming hot AznHB8.5. She actually finds out via third party that the opener I used to open her was made for that purpose… to open her. The AMOG in the set instantly called me “Pathetic”. I ignored him. He then proceeded to call me pathetic 3 more times in increasing volume. I proceeded to ignore him and game the girl. Each time he called me pathetic he lowered his value… guy was trying to hard. Each time I ignored him and showed I was not even fazed by the word he was saying, I raised my social value. After a bit more gaming, the AMOG started qualifying himself to me. This is where I knew it was over. Used a paraphrased version of TD’s “Look man, you don’t have to impress me, I already like you” shortly followed by an NLP interrupt pattern to throw in his subconscious a command that he was out of energy… After which it was really over. Anyway, I sort of went on a tangent here :) The guy was in total VIOLATION.

And, oh, the HB8.5 invited me to change venue. Upon arriving at the new place her first words were “Can I buy you a drink”. Though I did not get the full close that night :(


Lovedrop, good job in communicating this theory.

- Mojo

[Suspect]

If violating social rules is truly such a costly mistake, then an obvious conclusion is that developing a very instinctive understanding of social rules and habitually avoiding being a violator is a strong part of social calibration. The first question that comes to my mind is more less "what are the most common ways that I am the social violator." Identifying where you are opening yourself to be AMOGed or otherwise blown-out could do wonders for anybody's game.

In this situation, is it a good idea to point out her weird expression? I remember reading a post by Chariot (RSD) a while ago where he'll point out "she's giving me the sniper look" and make fun of it (haven't had the chance to test it myself). Is that too reactive (actually I don't really understand what "unreactive" really means)?

. By plow and be unreactive it means to maintain your current state, tonality, energy level and expression. You are unreactive because you are behaving in a way that does not depend on her own behavior, so therefore it is not a reaction to her. In terms of violator theory, the look is meant to communicate that you are in fact a social violator, therefore calling attention to it risks reinforcing that you are, in fact, the violator if not done with a strong frame. I imagine that Chariot has a strong frame and hence is able to reframe her look to mean that she is the one being weird.

Say she asks you to do something eg "pass me my purse" - if you don't it could be a violation, but if you do then you seem submissive

The real problem is that you accept her frame that you should pass her purse. Instead, think in terms of her being a violator for being rude enough to demand that you pass her purse. You might call her on this by responding with picking up her purse, but before you actually pass it look at her and say "please...?" and then pass it when she says please. This way, you make her look rude without being rude, and you made her jump through a hoop of your own before jumping through hers.

Say I tell this story in set (the purpose is to subcommunicate that I don't kiss and tell): the story is about how I met this girl and had a ONS, then we didn't see each other for a few weeks. Then one day a friend told me he heard I slept with that girl, and I was furious because I didn't tell anyone so it must have been the girl - and I hate it when people kiss and tell.

I would think this one would be OK, although I might tell it about the ONE TIME I had a ONS, which I totally didn't tell anybody about, and act embarrassed you even revealed this fact - that's just to be congruent with the secret society that you don't openly admit to having ONS, it's just understood. Also, I'd probably be 'upset' rather than 'furious', the latter seems too out-of-control.

I say "that's not high, many of my female friends have had much more... of course that's not what they tell most people, because some people are very judgemental."

This, to me, feels like a violation

[Nitro]

Pure Gold.

;=--

[Yoda]

This information is very valuable.

It's good background info that everyone should read.

[geses]

Wow. I'm totally blown away by this post. IMHO, having the insight to codify these concepts is unreal; very elucidating to me.

I think that sometimes by just cold approaching a HB, she takes it as a "violation" if she perceives her value to be too high relative to mine. I guess that's when I should have set up the approach first by social proofing/merging sets/possibly negs.

[sting]

LD,

One of the best comprehensive overview posts ever.
I hope you won't consider it presumptious for a student to make one or two suggestions? (violation theory in action;) )

- it is a touch raw, as you said, tightening it up so that it 'flows' more easily (Sinn's posts are a good example of this) would have it come through more clearly. the content is top notch, as is.

- a few more examples of the general principals you point out.

if you have a best of section here - this one gets my nod to start the ball rolling. best post i've seen in ages.

thanks for that,
Sting

[Tantric]

the only thing that somehow doesn't fit into all of this theory are negs.
no matter how smooth your neg is, it still has to be noticed as a slip of your social judgement, otherwise it has no effect (ever negged someone who was dumb and she didn't even get that you were negging her?).

so if you're saying "nice nails, are they real?", you're "social game" has slipped. you don't do this when you're polite. she'll think "no, he didn't just say that, it's inappropriate, even if it's true."

same goes with blowing your nose in front of her without excusing yourself (sniper neg).

now i know that negs work if used correctly. but i somehow can't fit them into the system. lovedrop, would you mind explaining this a little more? thank you.

I'll take a crack at this.

Negs aren't an offense to the interaction if done properly, because even if they are a slight bit offensive, they can't be reacted to, because being reactive is a greater offense to the interaction--especially if the negging party did it in a humourous, teasing way. Another aspect of secret society is that this is quite possibly recognized at an instinctual level as flirting, the roots of which start in childhood where the boy and girl that are crushed on each other and tease like crazy.

So these interactions are completely consistent with the theory when done the right tone and timing. And if not, they'll get you blown out fast!

Further, they may support the dynamic of the group by bringing the highest value member (the hot chick) down slightly in status. When have you not been in a group of 3 or 4 women and not have one or two of the girls want to see the hot one's status go down in relation to their own (they can't admit that though, it would be a violation!) We know that the negs work to get the group to approve you socially and this may be one of the reasons.

Tantric

[Utah]

I'll take a crack at this.

Negs aren't an offense to the interaction if done properly, because even if they are a slight bit offensive, they can't be reacted to, because being reactive is a greater offense to the interaction--especially if the negging party did it in a humourous, teasing way. Another aspect of secret society is that this is quite possibly recognized at an instinctual level as flirting, the roots of which start in childhood where the boy and girl that are crushed on each other and tease like crazy.

So these interactions are completely consistent with the theory when done the right tone and timing. And if not, they'll get you blown out fast!

Further, they may support the dynamic of the group by bringing the highest value member (the hot chick) down slightly in status. When have you not been in a group of 3 or 4 women and not have one or two of the girls want to see the hot one's status go down in relation to their own (they can't admit that though, it would be a violation!) We know that the negs work to get the group to approve you socially and this may be one of the reasons.

Tantric

I agree with this quote.

As I understand the theory negs would therefore act like bait to the SHB's - if they take the bait and get offended and then act all bitchy to you they violate a social norm and their status decreases in the eyes of the group. They therefore leave it and don't take the bait. They go down socially but not by as much.

However conversly if you cross the line negging (and you violate) they have every right to blow you out of the set and their status increases in the eyes of their group (because they got rid of the creepy guy).

Brilliant post LD, quite advanced stuff but it certainly helps understand chick logic and have solved a few mysteries in regard to a few SHB's I know!!!!

[Crash]

i see

let's see if i'm understanding this correctly now:

doing violations lowers your value, but being reactive lowers your value even more.

so let's use a point system for value. as value is relative it doesn't matter how many points you have in absolutes, only in relation.

you neg her, you've done a slight violation, you've bended social ethics, but didn't break them. you lose one value point.

if she's in a group and the group decides that his slight violation is acceptable, he has successfully lowered her value by 3 points. in order for her to not lose any more points through being reactive she shuts up and thus declares the neg as accepted. the new social order is now guy -1, girl -3.
he successfully raised his value relatively, because she lost way more value than he did.

by bonding with her friends, his value goes up in their heads, his further negs don't cause him to lose any more value because he's already established a frame with his first neg, that this kind of behaviour is socially accepted. calling him out on the third neg would be a violation in itself. it's important that his following negs aren't more violating than the first neg, because you can easily break social ethics by going to far. being called out by them saying "it's enough!" would then be perfectly acceptable within the constructs of this theory.

so negging is a form of baiting. so are shittests. if you react (e.g you fail the shittest) you basically are in violation and subject to be blown out.

therefore you can say that being reactive in itself is a form of violation.

did i get it?

i know it's somewhat unstable, but i wonder if i'm going in the right direction with this.

[Lovedrop]

Hey all, I just wanted to post some responses to questions raised on this thread. Thanks for all the thought-provoking discussion!



To Mastery:

Regarding the phrase “it’d be rude not to” – I am referring to the UK usage of this phrase. It’s a bit tongue-in-cheek. If a guy says something like, “I wonder if I should buy that lovely lady a drink.” Someone else might reply saying, “It’d be rude not to.” See how the usage is tongue-in-cheek?

“It’d be rude not to” is a phrase with the structure such that it grants permission to a certain course of action by invoking a higher authority (social etiquette). What if I said, “I should spank that girl on the ass – it’d be rude not to.” What’s important is not so much the logical truth being asserted, but rather the strength of the frame. As long as the phrase is utilized in such a way that the structure fits, and it is delivered congruently (or even if it is delivered humorously) then it will work regardless of whether it is actually true.


Say I tell this story in set (the purpose is to subcommunicate that I don't kiss and tell): the story is about how I met this girl and had a ONS, then we didn't see each other for a few weeks. Then one day a friend told me he heard I slept with that girl, and I was furious because I didn't tell anyone so it must have been the girl - and I hate it when people kiss and tell.

Is this considered "explicitly voicing a secret society understanding", hence a violation?


This story is not a violation. This story is actually an example of how to do it right.


Also on the topic of secret society:

Another routine I wanted to test is, let's say I'm playing the question game and she asks how many girls I've slept with. I say X (not high, not low) and she says wow (pretending like it's high, even though she's probably slept with more). I say "that's not high, many of my female friends have had much more... of course that's not what they tell most people, because some people are very judgemental." (The purpose is to subcommunicate I'm non-judgemental and my female friends trust me with their secrets, ie I'm secret society.)

Is this also considered "explicitly voicing a secret society understanding", hence a violation?

And if the above examples are secret society violations, then how DO you actually subcommunicate that you're a secret society member? (Examples please?)


Yes this story I don’t personally like. I wouldn’t want to explicitly say, “Girls have a lot of sex, even though the social programming says they don’t, I know they really do because I’m one of the special few anointed ones!” See, if you truly are endowed with social intelligence, then you wouldn’t have a need to say things like this. Socially intelligent people know that this only makes them look like a try-hard. Plus, other socially intelligent people would recognize you – and you them – just through the vibe. It’s unnecessary to tell them something they already know.

The socially intelligent person talks like he doesn’t hook up that much – and gives others plausible deniability for same – yet in actuality he hooks up regularly. Socially intelligent people just get it and don’t need this explained.

The principle is: ACT as if you know the matrix is false, but TALK as if you believe the matrix is true. Now you have plausible deniability.


In this situation, is it a good idea to point out her weird expression? I remember reading a post by Chariot (RSD) a while ago where he'll point out "she's giving me the sniper look" and make fun of it (haven't had the chance to test it myself). Is that too reactive (actually I don't really understand what "unreactive" really means)?


It all depends on the frame. If you point out her weird expression for no other reason than to put her on the spot, then you have created uncomfortable feelings. For what purpose?

Whereas Chariot is reframing things in a playful way. The power of his warmth and charisma pulls the girls into his new, more fun frame. He pulls this off in part due to his unreactive delivery.

Unreactive basically means you aren’t having any additional emotional reactions to the girl that you wouldn’t also have around your grandma or your niece. If a girl is giving you additional hesitation, nervousness, or any feeling like you are afraid to “fuck it up” then you know you are more emotionally reactive to her than you normally would be. When you would rather be the same fun, unaffected guy around her that you would normally be around your friends and relatives.

Superfreak: Yes your interpretation of the theory is correct, where you use the metaphor about drawing a line in the sand.

Daredevil: I don’t consider ballsy openers to be social violations (the delivery is important here.) Thus I don’t really feel a need to account for them in any special way. It’s true that, if she chooses, she can set a frame on me to make me appear to be a violator. But remember that she can do that even if I am being nice. Ultimately it’s her choice whether she wants to meet me, ignore me, battle me, or whatever, but hopefully my high value will compel her to give me IOIs and compliance instead of giving me trouble.

You are correct that sometimes people can and do ignore the player when he opens the set. My point is that, in order to do this, they must have some frame set, even if only in the subtext, that I am violating somehow. Otherwise they become the violators. For example, imagine that their friend is trying to introduce me to them, and they are still ignoring. Obviously they would look/be rude if they did this, and in fact they would not do it under those circumstances. Why not? What is the difference?

Scythe42: Very interesting post. Please send me the names of any related books I might want to check out: Lovedrop – at – Venusian Arts dot com


the only thing that somehow doesn't fit into all of this theory are negs.
no matter how smooth your neg is, it still has to be noticed as a slip of your social judgement, otherwise it has no effect (ever negged someone who was dumb and she didn't even get that you were negging her?).

so if you're saying "nice nails, are they real?", you're "social game" has slipped. you don't do this when you're polite. she'll think "no, he didn't just say that, it's inappropriate, even if it's true."

same goes with blowing your nose in front of her without excusing yourself (sniper neg).

now i know that negs work if used correctly. but i somehow can't fit them into the system. lovedrop, would you mind explaining this a little more? thank you.

I define a neg as something that indicates disinterest WITHOUT violating.

For example, if I said, “Hey you fucking bitch, fuck off” – notice that I have indicated disinterest. But I have also violated. Thus, this is not a neg – it is an insult.

Whereas if I blow my nose around her, I have not insulted her, but I have still conveyed disinterest. Think about it…I would blow my nose in front of my grandma. I would use a Kleenex in front of my niece. So why would I avoid doing so in front of a hot chick? The only reason is because I am trying to impress her, and I am worried about what she thinks of me. Thus, if I blow my nose in front of her, it conveys just the opposite – that I am not worried what she thinks of me, and that I am not trying to impress her.

-Lovedrop

[Mehow]

great post -- for those of you who haven't read it over and over -- i encourage you too. LDs post is one of the best examples of clear elucidations of theory that will change your game.

a ways back i started using social openers - 'you guys are fun, i had to come over here and say hi' type stuff

i noticed that, when combined with a good game, you always got rid of the amogs in this way

i read the LD post - and i liked it a ton because it perfectly explained why what I was doing worked.

see, opening with a direct social opener creates one of LD's double binds if followed up with game that is extremley engaging to women but not engaging at all to men.

i open direct socially like listed above and then I use game that hooks the women hard core (tons of kino and emotional content) and the women start paying attention to me while the men just stand there.

since i'm soo friendly and fun and following all the rules of social engagment (e.g. i'm not a violator) - i engage the people that engage me - and in this case this is only the women - the men have to be cool with it or they themselves become violators ...

so ... this always goes down in one of two ways ...

1. the dudes let me stick around and game the set, they are out of their own converation or they somehow participate, but either way i get the 3 minutes I need to make attraction red hot ...
2. the dudes try fucking with me ... they instantly become violators ... i now activley ignore them and the women will ignore them too (even if its a husband, boyfriend, brother etc. - preexisting relationships are in no way immune to violation theory - field tested btw). and then i do my thing for 3 minutes and win the women over

either way i get the women ...

then i figure out what the relationship of the men is to the set and if they are friends, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, etc. i reel them back in with a mix of value and false disqualification and pull the entire set with me otherwise they are blown out and i take their women

there is only one situation in which this doesn't work - that is in situations where there are a ton of guys and hardly any women in the set. then i become uncool for just engaging the women (I'm a violator) so the amogs are in far better position. on these sets i run the same emotionally engaging game but i make the men part of it by using crazy false disqualifiers. same result in the end - just different game.

-m

[leslav]

This is a very interesting thread.

I didn't see this mentioned earlier. Perhaps it's obvious, or I should read more carefully, but I just realized something regarding this disussion.

In some ways, DHV can be thought of as a group of social violations appropriate to interactions between people of different social status, that would not be appropriate between people of the same social status.

Example (work): It is inappropriate in a team meeting to interrupt your teammate, but when the boss walks in, all threads are cut. The boss can interrupt anyone talking at will, or ignore the questions of his employees.

What is interesting is that in some of our social interactions there is a clearly defined social hierarchy in play (e.g. at work), which dictates which actions are appropriate between people. If someone, objectively agreed upon to be a peer acts "as if" he is the boss, that is, allows himself to engage in the social violations appropriate to those of higher status than he is commonly known to be, that person is looked down upon in the group and is commiting a big DLV. The technical term for someone like this is "asshole" or "douchebag."

In a social environment without a clear social hierarchy like a nightclub, people always have a "social hierarchy" process running in their minds, and the player's goal is to position himself slightly higher than his targets in the subjective social hierarchy that the targets have created. The key perception is the target's belief about your social status relative to her's. A lot of people talk about your displays of your own status, but it seems like that might only be a part of the equation, and he belief about your value is equally important.

Depending on how strong her belief is, it can be influenced. If she hasn't seen you until you open (so she has no opinion of your status), and your dress, BL, tonality etc. are all congruent with the kinds of high-status social violations you engage in (e.g. displaying IODs, excessive kino from a "conventional" POV, frame control, ignoring questions etc.) then she essentially updates her beliefs about your social status toward high status. This is part of why the attract phase becomes much easier when you have "social proof" or preselection. She has already positioned you high in the social hierarchy. Now all you have to do is not fuck it up. This is also why dress is important. It sends a signal about your social status immediately.

This is why first impressions are important, and why demeanor in the club when not in set counts AS MUCH as what you do in set. If you are standing by yourself for half an hour and go to open a set, the exact same things that would otherwise work may not work as well as if you had been partying with your friends or talking to girls previously. If you stand around alone, the target forms an impression of you as a low social status individual, so your negs and other actions come off as "douchebag"-ish, in the same way that acting like the boss around coworkers is "douchebag-ish."

Hey LD: seems like the discussion here would predict that the higher the target views your value to be relative to hers, the harder the negs that would be effective.

It also might predict that in venues where people will assume everyone to be "more or less" the same status, like a college bar, "higher status" social violations might be less effective, unless you have given the targets MORE of a reason to believ you are of higher status than everyone else beforehand.

Lots of interesting things to think about in this framework.

[sunn69y]

Love this thread absolutely delirious, this is the kinda piece you read the first time and you know its da bomb and you dont fully internalize till you read it again and again and each time you reach a stronger understanding.

Now would it be so hard to give us more breakdowns like this, show us a live feed and analyze it.

When I eventually can afford it, this is the kinda teacher I would pay to go learn from in a bc. Recormendations are fine and great threads are nice and all-but demonstrations like this lets you know what type of teacher the guru is likely to be and how their mind works, to know whether or not before hand that your gonna be getting more than just the brosure and that you can form that strong enough bond to truely take more than just their teaching

Ps Since I dont do the Hero worship thing I would just like to say I really didn't like the piece at all as a matter of fact its crap and I'm only gonna read it 6/7 times, photo copy, paste it into my permanants but thats about it!:p

[sting]

if we're moving particularly good stuff to the Articles Section - this one belongs there.


cheerio,
Sting

[Showcase]

This article has definitly helped me understand that "weird look" I was getting from girls upon opening them in the field. I'd be getting the look and after I would run the opener I would eject from the set thus making what she did effective since she was trying to blow me out/test for strength in the first place. Instead and in the future I will be plowing through this look, by going straight into A2 unreactively.

[skuzzy]

Great post LD.. made it clearer of what you and Moxie where talking about over the weekend on being unreactive. It made me think about a line that Metro used after he brought a girl back into set after isolation.
"hey your friend and I like each other, you guys cool with that?"
the rest of the set seen their friend with a big cheesy grin being with Metro.. and would be social violaters if they said "NO".. therefore the target getting their friends approval of Metro and pumping her BT more..

Thoughts..??

[Moxie]

Exactly skuzzy - right on - but think of it more as pumping Metro's value as opposed to her BT but there would be a BT increase. Plus it's a strong declaration by the group that they are officially disarmed. This is a great position to be in.

[skuzzy]

yep I can see that it pumps his value more.. thanks.

[Tantric]

The social theory behind these interactions is broken down in excruciating detail in the classic book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour by Erving Goffman.

The concept of "face", how we as participants in an interaction choose a line and then must maintain it, or risk the disapproval of the group, why deference and demeanor must be maintained, and aspects of socially risky behaviours and interactions like gambling, etc are discussed in an brilliantly insightful way.

[sinc3r3_NYC]

Hmm now where's that guy that says that Alpha's are like superheros ? And that Alpha is a "lame" turn .


Lets see him post some nonsense here ....


The Alpha "status" isn't given , its earned and I worked hard for mines so letting go of it is out of the question


Good post LD

[Killer]

Someone should give LD an honorary sociology//Psych degree. Brilliant stuff.

[Sexcellent]

I've implemented Violation Theory into my game, with some pretty good results. I think sometimes guys go overboard with AMOG, and this explains why AMOGing is more complicated than it seems.

[Teeth]

Someone should give LD an honorary sociology//Psych degree. Brilliant stuff.

+1, This was absolutely great, Thank you.

[Rance]

I would straight up get called "weird" by the target. It used to hurt and knock me off track and i'd fail.

I eventually realised;

"you're weird" translates to "you're the only fuckin guy who's ever had the balls to be this way around me".

And i'd stay firmly on track.

[Indestructible]

As a female, I endorse LOVE-DROP's Violation Theory 100%.

I have seen it happen 10,000 times in-field. Over the years, I have been hit on many-many times, and thus, have seen almost ALL POSSIBLE ways in which erring in either one of these directions can mess up a guy's Game:

1] Being too passive & Giving up plowing, or
2] Being to Aggressive & displaying Rude behavior.

REMEMBER: ALL GIRLS WANT A PRINCE CHARMING.
Prince stands for STRENGTH, POWER & AUTHORITY..
Charming stands for POLITE, PROTECTIVE & EMOTIVE.

Failing to escalate WHILE being rude = weak court jester. Not PRINCE CHARMING.


**********************************
1] She is not going to escalate. She is not a man. That is YOUR JOB.

YOUR JOB AS A MALE IS TO KEEP ESCALATING!

Not to a point of violating her PERSONAL SPACE, or, God Forbid, to a point of a rape, but to the point, of backing away NON-RE-ACTIVELY and ESCALATING AGAIN in a bit in the form of Compliance Tests!!! And GRADUALLY getting her to the point where she realizes that it's EMOTIONALLY MORE PLEASURABLE TO COMPLY - and passes her COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD!!! I cannot stress this enough!!!

THROW COMPLIANCE TESTS AT HER! And be Non-Reactive!
When you back away NON-REACTIVELY = it makes her TRUST you more next time.
When you return & escalate = it makes her feel you are strong & loyal.

If a guy whom we like stops plowing and gives up = we ASSUME he is weak. You have NO CLUE as to how many times I went home from dates DISAPPOINTED that the guy I liked DID NOT ESCALATE! I don't mean take her and rape her. I mean: RUN A BUNCH OF COMPLIANCE TESTS ON HER TO SEE IF SHE IS READY TO BE KISSED. See if she complies with your VERBAL ORDERS, etc.

It gives me SO MUCH MORE PLEASURE DURING SEX when a guy Gamed me CORRECTLY! I can't even describe it! When A guy TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for EVERY INTERACTION and ESCALATES - CORRECTLY! - Girls Feel a kind of SOCIAL PLEASURE that can be compared to 10 ORGASMS. Because females are SOCIAL ANIMALS. DUH!

ALL GIRLS WANT A PRINCE CHARMING = WHO WILL COME TO RESCUE THEM ON HIS WHITE HORSE & SWEEP THEM OFF THEIR FEET. READ: SWEEP GIRLS OFF THEIR FEET. NOT BOMBARD THEM WITH COMPLIMENTS! TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTERACTION!!!!

CONCLUSION PART I : All girls want to be LED. Just tell them WHAT TO DO. SWEEP THEM OFF THEIR FEET! LEAVE NO GROUND FOR THEM TO STAND ON. YOU BECOME THEIR PILLAR OF STRENGTH. DO not ask. If she complies = reward. If she defies = punish and DHV again. It's a loop. Don't make it complicated.

**********************************
2] If a guy is rude = gets pissy, sulky, bitter, snaps or yells at other guys, picks fights, is late or stands you up on dates, is easily reactive (read: overpowered by you) when you are testing him for strength or compliance, or in any other way violates socially accepted norms = means he is REACTING. Means he is BETA.

ALPHAS ARE ALWAYS POLITE. THEY ARE NEVER BACKED INTO A CORNER. THEY DO NOT NEED TO REVERT TO SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

One famous writer who published numerous books on Self-Defense was exploring the Nature of an Alpha male. He said, only BETAS REACT - this shows they are backed into a corner. Here is GREAT ARTICLE THAT ELABORATES ON THE NATURE OF POWER & AUTHORITY = AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO BE ALPHA.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/alphabehavior.htm

And here is my article inspired by his:

**********************************
In a Fight, A WOLF NEVER BARKS.

I admire my boss for many reasons, not least of them - for being able to stay calm in any situation. This one stupid kid started yelling at the top of his lungs last night. My boss just listened calmly to the information he could provide. And did what was necessary to resolve the problem.

Men who are TRULY in control - never lose their temper.
Why would they? They are in control, after all.
Think about it. Why would ANYONE ACTIVATE THEIR FIGHT-OR-FLIGHT RESPONSE WHEN THEY PERCEIVE ZERO DANGER?

If someone resorts to screaming or yelling at you, this means 1 thing only:
They feel BACKED INTO A CORNER and see no other way out.
No other legitimate way to resolve the situation or defend their idea/viewpoint.

They are OUT OF ALL RESOURCES and THINK THAT YOU HAVE BETTER CHANCES TO WIN. Unless they scream.

GUESS WHOM THEY HAVE JUST NAMED THE STRONGER PARTY? By screaming like a sissy girl, they are telling you THEY feel threatened. By you. By your competence/your power/your advantages over them.

In a fight, a wolf never barks.
Just goes for the jugular.
Direct show of force & authority is sometimes justified & necessary.
Losing temper? - Never is.

Alphas are never out of resources/people/support/ideas.
Alphas are never backed into a corner.
They will find a way to win.

SO STOP SCREAMING.
The ENTIRE ROOM KNOWS you are Beta.

CONCLUSION PART II: ACTING RUDE = BETA. BE NICE, but SMART = ALPHA.

**********************************
GENERAL GUIDE-LINES FROM A GIRL'S PERSPECTIVE:

LOVE-DROP's VIOLATION THEORY STANDS PARAMOUNT.
ALL GIRLS WANT A PRINCE CHARMING TO SWEEP THEM OFF THEIR FEET.
NOT A COURT JESTER WHO THROWS DARTS AT THEM and then DISAPPEARS!

PRINCE stands for STRENGTH = KEEP PLOWING.
CHARMING stands for POLITE = AVOID VIOLATING SOCIAL NORMS.
Failing to escalate WHILE being rude = court jester. Not PRINCE CHARMING.

Therefore:
1] Keep ESCALATING in the form of Compliance Tests = Alpha = PRINCE.
2] AMOG others in a non-RUDE WAY = CHARMING.


AVOID VIOLATING SOCIAL NORMS!
USE Compliance tests INSTEAD!
CT, CT, CT,CT, CT,CT, CT, CT, CT, = sex.

BECOME THAT PRINCE!
SWEEP GIRLS OFF THEIR FEET!
LEAVE NO GROUND FOR THEM TO STAND ON.

YOU BECOME HER PILLAR OF STRENGTH.
She will end up on her back.
AND THANKFUL FOR IT - TEN TIMES OVER.

**********************************

[AlphaAdonis]

GOOD STUFF INDESTRUCTABLE, very insightful. Thanks

You know what would be amazing??? If youi could give us your top 10 ways to:
1)COMPLIANCE TEST
and
2)AMOG POLITELY/CHARMING

From a Man eaters perspective ;)

This would help alot of us immensly!