Train with Mystery Get Trained in your city



Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Violation Theory Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Real World Example

        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

        Comment


        • #19
          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

          Comment


          • #20
            Pure Gold.

            ;=--

            Comment


            • #21
              This information is very valuable.

              It's good background info that everyone should read.

              Comment


              • #22
                Props

                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Crash View Post
                    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
                    Last edited by Tantric; 01-16-2007, 07:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I think you got that right

                      Originally posted by Tantric View Post
                      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!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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 [i]just get it[/i] 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

                          Originally posted by ”Crash”
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            Last edited by leslav; 01-20-2007, 05:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Please Sir Can I Have Some MORE

                              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!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                if we're moving particularly good stuff to the Articles Section - this one belongs there.


                                cheerio,
                                Sting

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X