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

  • Violation Theory

    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.

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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?
          Last edited by Rich; 01-12-2007, 06:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              This post is packed w/ value, thanks for posting LD.

              Best,
              Mathew Stone

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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

                  Originally posted by Lovedrop View Post
                  --- 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?

                  Originally posted by Lovedrop View Post
                  --- 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"?


                  Originally posted by Lovedrop View Post
                  --- 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?)


                  Originally posted by Lovedrop View Post
                  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"?)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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
                    Last edited by Superfreak; 01-12-2007, 10:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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- [B][I]Daredevil[/I][/B] -x-

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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- [B][I]Daredevil[/I][/B] -x-

                            By the way, WHERE's Mystery?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X