| In two seperate threads in three days back on the forum, I've had to deal with this strange notion that the men here know what every woman in the whole world wants. I believe that this assumption is a terrible mistake, and that the consequences of continuing to practice pick-up under it's thrall are catastrophic enough that they need address.
The pick-up artist community is built around the idea that certain learned skills and traits will increase a man's ability to attract a mate. For the most part, this is true; there are things you can do and ways you can act that will increase your chances of finding a good looking woman who wants those things in a man. When these behaviors show strong rates of success, we tend to assume that this implies "this is a behavior women want in a man."
This line of thinking is dangerous, sexist, incorrect, and it's turning a lot of us into douchebags.
I don't think anyone on this forum (up to and including our good friend AFC Adam) has a 100% pull ratio. On my absolute best days, I have a 75% k-close rate, and that has only ever happened twice in my four-year career as a pick-up artist. The test to become a "master" pick-up artist has long been held as "five for five," five closes in five sets. Why not six for six? Or ten for ten? Or fifty for fifty? Because it's really fucking improbable, and we'd have maybe two mPUAs in the world.
Having made the five for five benchmark a few times in my career, one would think I could say with certainty that "this is a behavior women want in a man," about any one of the things I've learned from the community. But I cannot, and will not, say that there is any universally attractive feature in a man, woman, goat, whathaveyou.
There is simply no characteristic that every woman you desire will find attractive, I'm sorry. Sometimes, when a technique that has worked in the past does not work at a later time, pick-up artists will blame their delivery, the technique itself (it's "unreliable"), or some other factor when, in reality, the woman in question simply didn't respond to the trait being communicated through that technique with an attraction response. This is part of the reason that the community focuses on not taking rejection personally: sometimes, the technique does not have the desired effect, so you move on and try again. Maybe your next target will respond with attraction.
The most popular and widely acknowledged pick-up art in the world today, Erik Markovik's, utilizes this principle to perfection. What Erik has created is a set of behaviors that correspond well with the idea that women are not to be idealized, allowing you to move through many sets of women in a single night, increasing the chances that you will find one that is attracted to that set of behaviors. It's amazingly effective because it _hinges_ on the idea that you can't have them all, and is congruent with brushing your previous target off to find a woman more in tune with the method.
Something that I have found greatly increases my own chances with any given woman is a period of "discovery" during my attraction and comfort phases, in which any given statement or question is used as a cold-read. The statements and questions contain various DHV spikes, and I try and hone in on the style of spikes my target responds to most visibly; in sales, we use this technique to try an ascertain the hot buttons a potential client is actually interested in (as opposed to the features they tell you they're interested in, because potential clients always lie to you ^_^). While I still haven't attained a 100% close rate, this method of discovery has greatly increased my chances to close above a number close. Where normally I would get a number, I will more often get a k-close, and k-closes turn into f-closes with more frequency.
Now, a lot of boys are taking some exception to this approach because they feel it puts the pussy back on a pedestal. Understand that the discovery happens under a more normal version of pick-up than I'm sure most of you are imagining. It looks, in fact, a lot like Juggler Method. The only real difference is in fine-tuning the open-ended statements and questions to reflect the DHV spikes she has shown the most interest in.
Why does this work? Because it isn't relying on my preconcieved notion of what women like in a man. It relies instead on the idea that each woman I speak to will react differently to different demonstrations of value, that I will need to rely on my ability to read people to better understand what they want in a man. Sometimes, those things line up with the standard Alpha Male fare. A lot of times, those things don't, and I would have lost the target with the sort of bullshit Alphas are known for.
Don't allow yourself to think that you know "what women want." Think, instead, "what does THIS woman want?"
_________________
Repent now and save 50% on your next divine judgment.
-Monkey's Little Brother, Spud
|
CHAT
