- Forgotten in a week
- Frustrated men
- Horror movie
- Those women are better
- The word "date"
- The right tool
- Scientific level
- Seduction gurus
- Negs
- Average values
Dating myth is an erroneous misconception that is being uncritically passed on as a truth. Such myth usually lacks supportive evidence, or the counter-evidence is ignored. The latter one could be done on a purpose for a financial gain as well as a result of strong belief in particular myths.
This article presents my own opinion on listed myths and therefore you can consider it as my personal disillusion, if that would help you feel better. To say it explicitly, I do not deny the possibility that there is (or was, or will be) at least one true seduction expert out there, who fairly promotes precisely formulated and accordingly working seduction technique. But I leave it on your personal judgment to decide for yourselves, which one he is (or ones they are).
Self-deception could be developed without being intentionally manipulated into it by somebody else. Therefore, I do not declare anybody as a deceiver. I've just happened to have a different opinion. Some extrapolation has been also involved.
1. She will forget you, if you don't call her within a week
Have you ever forget someone you like in a week? Most of us still remember our first love. If she has positive interest level, she won't forget you. Moreover, some discussion forums features a question "Why did not he call me the whole week?" that is asked by women. How could she ask, if she would not remember him?
Not to call for a week has some advantages and therefore you might be instructed to do so. At least, you will learn how much she is interested in you and what her world looks like. If you do have a life, you might have a program for the week as well as she might have one. This might be true as well as it may be nothing more but a plot as the difference cannot be usually told right at the beginning. Such plot helps to establish perception of high social value – see myth number 9.
However, some men are not sure about her interest level, so they are compelled to call her soon [2]. Some men feel lonely, so they are compelled to call her soon. Some men have low self-esteem so they actually believe that she will forget them in a week. So they are compelled to call her soon. Some men love to get mushy and this could be a self-deception to justify the idea of calling her ASAP. Perhaps, we could come up with more alternatives including the one, where men are convinced that the delay simply does not matter to a significant extent.
You should not wait exactly one week, but you should realize that you cannot force her to like you more just by seeing her more frequently. In such case, the opposite would be the likely outcome. Actual timing depends on what happened between the two you.
Note that the cca week pause applies to phone only. Facebook, ICQ, e-mail, etc. do not have this important property: telephone number gives the impression that you are not going for a friendly relationship. It suggests that you are going "for a kill" (date, romance, sex, and may be more). Therefore, she might rationalize that you're an attractive, but a busy man, if you don't call her ASAP. As a result, some women even call, or send SMS, sooner than you do – if they have positive interest level in you.
With a long term relationship and common living, you see each other on a daily basis. Therefore, with the week pause we have to be talking about the beginning of a relationship – i.e. the first dates.
2. Most men are frustrated by their affairs with women
This saying is usually accompanied with a list of what you could be. Expressively, it states how much good you could be with women. Take a look at any seduction school's offer to get an idea, if you've never seen one. Inversely, the list features your shortcomings, previous disappointments, delusions and rejections. Therefore, they are able to recall sad memories, after which you are confronted with an incredible offer not to ever go through such pain again. Here you are already being psychologically pressured. Any normal man ever loved a woman, was rejected and almost died on the desire to get her back. It is normal to recall past frustration with such memories, especially if you are alone at the moment.
Visual sense is significant to men [45]. Have you noticed as these lists are usually accompanied by e.g. number of hot looking women? For instance, along a general (and vague so that anybody fits in) analysis of your present situation, we can start with a decently and good looking girl, wearing a warm smile. Later on, as we can get to the promise of getting her somewhere, where you will enjoy some privacy, we would deploy another image to drive you crazy on a purpose. Just imagine her. 
So tell me, did I need any proof to get you interested?
Therefore, you very likely feel some frustration at this phase. You've either recalled some past frustration, or you are frustrated anyway. And here goes the next trick. You do not consider your present situation to be known to the myth-teller in advance. For instance, when you read a book that is already few years old. Thus, when you are presented with a statement on your current situation and you find the statement to be true (which you will on the frustration), then you are highly likely to assume that the myth-teller is right. And as he is assumed to be right at this point, he is subsequently assumed to be right at other points as well. Such thinking is OK, since you cannot go through life and suspect everyone of deceiving you. But in fact, the statement could either have sufficient statistical probability only, or it cannot be ever proven wrong – see later in myth number 5. The point is that the statement does not need to be valid or holding to convince you.
As you are under a psychological pressure, you are more open to accept dating myths. The pressure distorts your perception of reality. There is no way how to guarantee that you will be loved again only and only if you accept the incredible offer. Just by looking around, we can see people getting new relationships without even knowing about these offers. And that might be the trick... These incredible offers are likely to include teaching of dating myths.
If you are able to deal with a break up and find new relationship, you are able to deal with the frustration that was caused by the rejection. Thus, until you've been confronted with the above-mentioned list, you were most likely fine. Therefore, you would deal with the artificially induced frustration over time. Since the frustration will pass anyway, it is possible to mistakenly attribute this effect to that of learning a particular seduction technique* – the incredible offer. With this last step, you've fulfilled all necessary conditions to accept the presented information as a truth. Including the belief that you would stay frustrated without the technique, which is apparently a false assumption.
Since it is too obvious, gurus are being confronted with this fact from time to time. They usually argue with helping the others, who are not as lucky as you, the skeptic. There always will be people, who have relatively little experience and especially those, who do not conform to guru's teaching exactly. None of this is a problem since particular "working" teachings deny each other, and there are fresh supplies of teenagers every year.
I'm happy for all people having dates, but I cannot help but to notice as they sabotage their own efforts by doing known mistakes. It would not have happened, if they would pay attention to my teaching.
Although, such statement might seem fair, it is absurd in the way it interprets having dates. If you would do it so wrong, you would not even have the date in the first place. If you wish so, there is always a room for some kind of improvement, but believing a dating myth will not make it. Notice, the guru acts as a multi-level marketing recruiter, who advocates the scheme by stating that most people would use more money.
*Any seduction material is most likely to remind you that you feel better, because it has explained the dating principles to you. This is related to "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" [116]. Myth number 8 and Cold Reading [84] explain how it is possible for myths to be so persuasive even without actually being correct. Few well formed sentences are capable of inducing the feeling that your problem is well known. People usually tend to assume that if someone knows the problem, he knows the correct solution as well. Especially, if the guru act kindly and confidentially [103] towards them. This is an exploit, not a holding implication. Another completion of this exploit is to state something, it could be even wrong, and then to give your situation as an illustrative example.
If the seduction technique includes dating myths and you've adopted them as truth, they might actually harm your cause. The seduction material is likely to address possible troubles as a warning that it takes some time to master the technique. In the meantime, you can de-facto eradicate most of the myths from you repertoire e.g. by trials or third party source, so the eradicated myths no longer prevent you from succeeding with women. As you can see with listed myths, particular statements cannot be ever proved wrong and therefore it is possible to attribute the overall success to the technique. Notwithstanding that you had to get rid of technique's teaching first. Without critical thinking, your imagination will let you to develop a reasoning that the technique actually works. As with cognitive disorder [111], this is a possible way to deal with irrational beliefs** such as that non-functioning technique works. This contributes to credibility of seduction gurus and their teachings – see myth 8. The only way to eliminate the psychological bias is to adhere to the scientific method. Most preferably, to use a holding math model as it cannot be deceived, or forged, with trickery. Alias welcome to the world of The Theory of Interest :-)
**The other possible way is to admit a simple fact that the non-functioning technique does not work. However, this is not always possible, e.g. because of a firm believe in the technique.
Terms such as seduction school, material, technique, or guru are meant generally as I saw people to accept sophisticated illusions and apparent non-senses as well as working solutions. Of course, sophisticated and apparent is my subjective point of view. Nevertheless for an example, enneagrams [96] are well documented, yet they are accepted as astrology [96, 112] is. It is interesting as Barnum statements and Cold Reading itself [84] are also well documented. Apparently, well documented does not stand for well known, or well understood.
3. It is easier to have sex, when you watch horror movie
This generalization is based on an assumption that she will seek protection in your arms, when confronted with a horror scene. First of all, this is an expression of a romantic desire to hold a girl you love in your arms. Second, not every girl loves horror movies. Some do, some do not. Some actually prefer movies such as Mamma Mia!, PS: I Love You, French Kiss or Sabrina. And they feel relaxed at it. Especially, when there is champagne and strawberries. Such scenario won't be a romantic projection only, but it would be a real romantic situation. However, if you'll do it all the time, it will get boring and e.g. horror movie might be the desired change. Thus, it was not the horror movie, but it was the change, what worked to your advantage.
In addition, some horror movies are just too much natural than to get her relaxed and some are just way too stupid to gross you both out. These details are also being omitted.
Once you start thinking of possible origin of this myth, teenagers might cross your mind. Such idea gets realistic especially as you consider Halloween Eve. He might have been told by his friends of this guaranteed procedure and she might have been instructed by her friends to endure the horror movie. Under such conditions, it is apparently a mating ritual and it would work because they both agreed on what will be going on, since it is a well known fact.
Although this myth is given with horror movies, we might have seen a similar myth to go on in the American Pie movie. Instead of horror movie, there was a prom night. And guys believed that chicks would do it on the prom night.
While the horror-movie ritual won't at least do no more harm than about hour and half of watching B or C class movie*, it might not turn out so well in other situations. For instance, prime A-class horror movie will not get her relaxed, if she does not suffer from a suitable deviation. But, a fine movie might be at least appreciated for its qualities. However, if she did not like it, she did not like the date either. Actually, you worsened your chances to get her on a next date. Let's hope that she still has enough of interest level to accept next one.
*Regarding horror movies, I would not say that it is better to prefer B class as C class is likely to be so stupid, so it can function as a comedy of its kind, when you both start commenting it. Once again, it is not the horror movie what raises your chances. But the horror-myth-tellers somehow don't tell us about this aspect, although one might expect them to do so, if they are as good as declared. See myth number 8.
4. Women from somewhere are better in something
Refer to Cold Reading manual [84], especially the technique called "Greener Grass".
Ratio of men to women varies with age and geographic location. The more men than women in her society, the less she needs to behave nicely. Laws of free market apply here.
5. If you would not had used the word "date", you would had the date
First of all, you might not have had the date just because she did not like you enough. This possibility is linked with the following myth.
Because of high self-esteem and moral principles, some women refuse to mislead men. Therefore, they do not go on dates, when they are not interested. If such woman considers you as her friend, she might go out with you. However, once the word "date" is used, she rejects the offer. As long as you deceive her by pretending a different motive, she might keep going out with you. However, it is a self-deception by ignoring her true interest level in you.
Sometimes, especially when they are in relationship, they might decide not to see you again once you proposed the date. This is not because of the word as this is because she previously made a bad experience with someone, who did not take the rejection well. Sadly, such behavior could be completely unfair to you as you might have no option to prove the opposite. It would be viewed as a persuading and thus you'll be classified as a man, who does not know when to stop. Aka her previous bad experience.
Another possibility is that some men act needy, or over-confidently, when they use the word "date". So, it is not the word, what lowered her interest level, but the inappropriate behavior.
Notably, this self-deception belief shares a common trait with the true believer syndrome [96, 106]. As the above given facts may be used for reasoning that it is better not to use the word "date", it is not completely illogical to believe in this myth. Once you are rejected, it is impossible to prove that it always was not because of this reason. Thus, if the myth would be correct at least one time, it could be correct several times more and therefore you can still consider it as a truth.
I remember a girl that responded with reasoning that we should not call it a date, just rather a meeting. I stood my ground and kept calling it a date. She accepted and wanted to see me again after the date. Another one was apparently delighted with the fact I used the word "date". Notice as this counter-evidence could be easily suppressed as the myth is de-facto a post-mortem analysis. Because of this and the fact that it does not explicitly deny the given scenarios, the myth cannot be proven wrong.
Anything that cannot be proven wrong cannot be tested for validity, because there is always only one result possible, no matter what the actual testing conditions are. Therefore, it cannot be considered as valid.
6. It is possible to seduce any woman, you just need the right tool
We can find this idea for instance in the Hitch movie. It completely ignores the fact you are not physically attractive to every women. Additionally, it ignores the very fact that some women are loyal and having a relationship.
The previous myth is also related to this one. Once you accept the erroneous belief that you can have any woman, there is only one conclusion left. You have not used the right tool right.
Persuasiveness of this myth comes from its notion as it resembles a statement, which cannot be proven wrong. Frequently, it is given in a more vague form with almost any woman. Let us consider a situation, when you fail to seduce one particular woman. If you would used another tool, you might have had succeed. But how to prove it, once you blew your chance? Let us consider a friend of yours, who succeeded. So, he either used the same tool but the right way, or he used a different tool. Since any sane, normal woman seeks a relationship, she will eventually get seduced one day. Globally, this statement cannot be ever proved wrong. Per single seducer, it does not hold.
This myth is also available as a statement that the top seduction gurus are capable of seducing 90% of women. Any woman, no specification is given. None of available statistics was ever objectively, critically and independently reviewed accordingly to scientific standards. Next matter of interest is that seduced women shared some common traits such as they were all strippers [35]. Apparently, the top seduction guru would have a hard time to seduce 90 of 100 women, if such pre-selection would not be in effect.
At this point, let me remind you of an important psychological factor. Just in case you would consider challenging a guru. To him, there's no problem walking up to a girl you point out, and present you as a frustrated, poor negativistic guy. Once the presentation is completed correctly, she will cooperate with him just because of solidarity or feeling pity for you. This way, you made him a hero in her eyes. There always will be some believers. So, think twice, before you make deceiving guru a martyr, or another icon, with a power to influence much more people. The best way is to spread the knowledge and promote critical thinking.
Let us assume that 50% of women are in relationship and 50% of them are loyal. It makes 25%, which cannot be seduced. Thus, we are already down to 75% from 90%, and still without considering other factors. You can go outside and ask each woman, whether she is, or is not, in a relationship. Obviously, more than 50% will be in relationship. Accordingly to demographic data [32], about 30% people have one person household. Yet, they still can be in a relationship. Of course, this is not a deep analysis, but it shows the trend. Perhaps, one should sweep spinster apartments to get supportive data for this myth – the above mentioned common trait. Or, isn't there such think such as bars for singles – pre-selection? Next, if most of population would approve adultery, it would not be perceived as a bad thing. But it is actually perceived as a bad thing. Thus, both 50% hold and we can clearly refute this variant of the myth.
Apparently, 100% were obviously too much, so 90% were chosen as it looks more realistic, yet admirable by potential believers.
Another variant is a saying that 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. This particular variant comes from the Parreto principle [114]. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. With a large set of participants, there is such 50 < k < 100 that k percents is taken (generated) by 100-k percents. A popular example is made of 20% of clients, which make 80% of sales. With women, 20% of entire know-how generates 80% of total attraction. Such statement would be valid in its principle. Generally, it does not have to be 20% and 80%.
The sleeping variant seems correct without examples, if one does not understand that the word "taken" is a synonym for a word "generated" here. Aka 80% of sales are generated by 20% of clients. Aka 20% of population generated such income so they could hold 80% of Italy land. Just because there are 20% and 80%, the statement does not automatically become true as it resembles Parreto principle. That has to be backed by statistics and it's still the same situation as with the previous variant.
To cope with presented counter-evidence, there are at least two ways available. The classical one is the impossibility to deny that among all those milliards of men, there's no one who could have such success. This would be especially persuasive argument, if we would deploy celebrities. As the second way, it is a matter of what the term "seduced" stands for. Accordingly to Merriam-Webster dictionary, it stands for "to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty" as well as it stands for "attraction". As a deceiving guru, you should define the term so vaguely so that your believers can actually have feeling of achieving it, yet you would stand above them so they can still admire you. It is possible to combine both ways.
Also, this myth shows how it is possible to interpret a scientifically proven numbers to fit a given teaching. As another example, we can take 50% as the required minimum for a success. In articles "Dating Is a Game" and "Equation of Interest Level Motion", I have shown that efficiency of used strategy must be greater than 50%. To a deceiving guru, it is possible to say that you should meet at least 50% of required conditions to succeed. Such statement is vague, looks like a common sense and those 50% have been proven somehow reliably – i.e. believers and less-educated people won't go through the proof (given they know about it). In reality, number of conditions and efficiency of strategy are two distinct things. Moreover, if anybody would really use the common sense, he would know that one has to meet all required conditions. Otherwise, they would not be required. Obviously, the word "required" is problematic here. But if guru would not mark the conditions this way, it would be apparently useless to talk about them. Thus, he has to emphasis them as required by other words or context.
7. Some seduction technique is way too practical to be treated on a scientific level
Anything that works for real could be treated on a scientific level. If it works, it is possible to exactly and independently measure its output in specific numbers.
Scientific method requires tracking of used literature, precisely formed description, measured values and most preferably having a math model. This is obviously at odds with people who are trying to make money by selling you nothing. Also, it is obviously at odds with people who firmly believe in myths and worship associated gurus.
Accordingly to the scientific method, I made an experiment for myself. For some time, I observed a selected number of nicks, which were considered as a professional source of advice on dating web forums. During that time, I learnt from their public posts that some of them were not even over 18. Yet, they were giving information on things they had none, or a little experience with. For an example, 17 years old boy gave a presentation on a subject of living with two women in a single household. And no, it was not about sister, mother, or grand mother, etc. Just one nick objected by pointing out this very fact of his age. The other discussing nicks bought it as truth. The common trait for such cases was to firmly state given statements as facts, although no evidence, or proof, was given – i.e. to act as an authority [113]. It is said that men don't take advices on driving and love [2]. From this point of view, I have to say that it is a right decision. And now, consider the easiness for a skilled deceiving guru to exploit lonely people.
8. The seduction gurus are the only ones, who have the superior knowledge
Whatever might seem as a golden insight to one person, it might be nothing more but well known information to a well-educated person with high social intelligence. It is just a matter of the presentation – see [84] for a topic with the same name. Also, people using pseudoscientific jargon do appear as if they understand the topic, while the opposite might be true.
Let us try an illustrative example on using Cold Reading [84] to impersonate an expert in psychology.
A healthy, full-grown adult can be rather a quiet, long-term relationship material, but when the circumstances are right, he can be quite a life and enjoy the pleasure of one night stand.
As we can see, the statement is just right. It perfectly corresponds with the reality and no one can say otherwise. How is that possible? It is possible, because I told you nothing. I just slightly modified an example for Rainbow Ruse technique as it is given in [84]. Nevertheless, we can still improve the statement by a technique that is called Whitening in cryptography. We need to add something that looks like a reliable fact. For instance that people in love have some illusions about their partners. This is related to another technique called Fine Flattery aka making client to feel good about him self. If things go wrong, the client is simply told that his partner was not long-term relationship material. Or, that she was too rigid for one night stand. Deceiving guru just need to choose an appropriate variant accordingly to client's wishes.
Numbers of people, which are considered as seduction gurus, teach dating myths. As seen with myths 5 and 9, it is impossible to prove that a given technique did not work in all cases, so that it is possible to reason that it could work at least once. And if it could have worked at least once, it could have worked several more times and therefore one cannot rule out the technique as non-working. Although it is ill logic, it justifies ignorance of counter evidence. This is linked with myths 7 and 10, cognitive disorder [111] and pseudoscience's characteristic traits. Myths will be spread out as long as they have appealing presentation and the recipient is either not well informed, or lacks critical thinking to figure it out on his own [84]. Notably, you don't have to actually understand the topic to come up with a persuasive argument to act as an expert. All you need is an audience that is ignorant of facts and critical thinking. The more eager they are to get what your promise, the easier it is.
Skeptical research on a particular seduction technique takes days at maximum. Consequences of erroneous decisions might take years. However, skepticism has a negative connotation for some people. As seen in this article, it stands for critical, rational thinking. Such thinking allows you not to buy wishful thinking and deception as facts. On the other hand, some people may end up being happy with a firm belief in myths and super abilities of gurus. Hence the term "feel-good psychology" that is sometimes used to refer to seduction techniques. Taught myth acts as a magical mantra that bestows believer's self-confidence, which is what the likely-to become believers actually lack.
As a fame of particular teaching grows, it attracts people just because of their curiosity whether the teaching could actually work, or not. Since the teaching deals with myths, the fame cannot not be sustained for a long time. Especially with a growing number of people as the probability of attracting those with critical thinking and respective knowledge rises. There are two ways to slow fame's degradation. First one is to include, e.g. by refactoring (see myth number 9), some working stuff*. Second way is to tell people that you don't want to see them after some time- threshold. Although it might look like a guarantee of functionality, one should not omit the very fact that people with no need for mantras would dismiss the teaching in the threshold, because it simply does not work as presented. This way, a deceiving guru raises chances of having ex-members, which still perceive him as a nice and honest person, who really helped others.
*As dating myths are erroneous misconceptions, realistic claims cannot be derived from them. Such claims are the bait, which attract believers. So, the dating myths form a central dogma. Adding of working stuff will modify the teaching to a limited extent only, because a deceiving guru will not deny his central dogma. The counter-evidence will be ignored, or the guru will give alternative interpretation of the counter-evidence. It may be as simple as a plain lie, or it might involve a straw-man fallacy [116] for instance. This fallacy is based on a misinterpretation of opponent's position.
As we can see due to skeptics, who vastly come from academic ground, things are being sold, even if they do not work as presented, or they do not work at all. Thus, if something is being sold, yet it does not mean it really works. What it does mean is that a care has been taken to perfect the presentation as of a working product. This was enforced by the rules of free market to deal with competitors and freely available materials.
Since a deceiving guru cannot win over an intelligent reader with respective knowledge, he has no other choice but to quit the battle and seed doubts into hearts of those, who prefer simple statements. It might look like this:
The skeptics have so closed minds, so they would never admit the simple truth that these techniques actually work. They would rather come up with more and more sophisticated explanations, why we cannot be right.
Accordingly to Occam's razor, one could reason that we should dismiss presented opinions in favor to simpler hypothesis that the questioned teachings are actually OK. This would be indeed true, if we would just omit the counter-evidence. See Cold Reading technique called "Open Mind" [84].
To deal with skeptical insights, the false dilemma could be employed. Reader would be given a set of invalid statements to choose among them. Beside the false dilemma, the insights could be marked as negativistic, paranoid, one-sided, ignorant, full of anger, harmful or even forbidden. The last option could be carried out secretly as it would harm guru's fame in eyes of potential believers, when done publicly. For instance, on Internet, it is possible to censor comments for particular words, or to block users known for referring to opposing materials. Another possibility is the proverbial thief that yells "catch the thief" to disguise himself as an honest citizen. And the historically grateful option is "all those believers cannot be wrong". Do you remember days, when Earth was flat?
Also, a well written counter-comment might come from a so-called unprejudiced person to aid a guru. Sometimes, it's a believer, sometimes it's the guru himself.
Another deceiving strategy is to pretend adhering to the scientific method. Or, it is possible to openly say so-called public secret as well. For instance, one may point out known inconsistencies on what is being told and what is being done. Accompany it with charts, citations, etc. and the expert-feeling is here. Just by the presentation, it is not always possible to say whether it is an intended-deception, self-deception or truth. For example, a guru could acknowledge that all major techniques are great, but results are poor because of ineffective teaching methods. As there are techniques to successfully present even unrealistic claims as possible ones, you have to pay attention to the teaching itself. To reality, error stays error no matter how it is being taught, practiced or presented.
Self-help improvement is the proverbial paradise for deceiving gurus. If anything goes wrong, the guru is never guilty. It is always client's fault that he did something wrong, or did not tried hard enough to approach sufficient number of women.
9. She will like you more, if you neg her
Neg is a technique that is aimed to lower her social value, so that by lowering hers, you're relatively upping yours. Therefore, she should like you more and qualify to prove herself worthy to you. If she does not respond well, some consider the possibility that she has some complex.
Obviously, this is an attempt of manipulative technique. Basically, she has two options. First, she might explain or make some counter-comment. This is being viewed as a qualification and therefore a success – see myth number 6. The other option is to leave. Classy, intelligent lady with high self-esteem leaves sooner or later, because she simply doesn't need to put up with this.
Men tend to give her extra credit because of their high interest level in her. This includes overlooking her shortcomings such as e.g. the low self-esteem. Or they do not, sometimes perhaps intuitively rather than on a purpose, as they would get their way easily with such women. For instance, a macho might seek a woman with low self-esteem this way. And because he considers himself as a great person, one cannot expect him to admit such simple fact. However, such two people could make a pair for a long term.
Manipulation provokes negative feelings and therefore she won't feel comfortable with you [109]. Long-term wise, you cannot keep woman with high self-esteem this way. Short-term wise, it depends on how frequently and intensively you put her down. As some negs are rather insults, it might take just one to loose her, especially during the first contact.
Now, pay very close attention. You cannot put her down only. Sometimes, you have to appreciate her. Seduction technique entailing this myth teaches to do both on a purpose. Go back and forth. Bait with a promise of hope, turn away for frustration. And now, let's name it for what it is. Alternating between approval and disapproval of somebody, inducing positive feelings to replace them with negative feelings and over again, this could cause a stress. With a noble jargon, we would call it entropy as there is uncertainty involved and the term comes from science. Whether it will cause the stress, or not, it depends on mental health and IQ of potential victim, used technique and its completion. However, it is possible to force her to develop emotional attachment to you, if you put her under such pressure. And to note it for the record, emotional attachment is not necessarily love, i.e. high personal interest level. For instance, it could be pity as well (so much for being Alpha).
A reaction to such stress could be considered as an example of defense mechanism of identification, such as new born babies form emotional attachments to nearest powerful adult because of probability that he will ensure child's survival [113]. Well known example is the Stockholm syndrome. What I personally consider most dangerous of particular seduction teachings is the possibility of creating true believers, which propagate and use such kind of manipulation.
Loyalty to abuser is common among victims of domestic abuse [113]. Does it ring a bell to you, when she stays because of the forced emotional attachment? So, once you see what a game is being played with you, get away as fast as you can. Even faster and no matter how attractive or honest he looks like. That's my advice. There are already numbers of pre-prepared persuasive lines to present the manipulation in a noble light. And they know them, perhaps even believe them. Have you considered the possibility that it might not end just with few bad memories only? As these techniques are often accompanied and justified by another erroneous teaching on how to become Alpha, it would be plainly illogical to assume that such practices will cease over time. With respect to common sense and Stanford Prison Experiment, it seems to me more likely that they will become everyday part of your life, if you choose to stay.
During first dates, there is obviously not enough time to create such pressure as with the Stockholm syndrome. It would have to happen incrementally, so there is a time to recognize the warning signals and leave in time. One is likely (not guaranteed) to leave because of repeatedly feeling uncomfortable, which is one of warning signals [109]. As an example, you might be thinking that the procedure works fine during your dates, and then she left like out of the blue.
From the psychological point of view, it is also worth to consider a question of alter ego possibility. A person that feels anger and frustration from received rejections might have developed, or adopted, an alter ego that uses negs to play "you need me more, baby" superman. Beside negs, such person is likely to deploy other technique to forge an impression of high social value. Aka rich man does not need to tell he is rich. However, some of them cannot be clearly identified as a fraud, since you have no proof that presented indicators of high social value were forged. Therefore, such techniques are being used, because they work as desired. Whether it is justifiable, or not, that I leave on your personal judgment as I would have to discuss one's motives and present situation as they can be used without negs.
Unlike the proverbial dark side, a neg could be used by a person that just believes it works. The belief could have been built e.g. upon watching as it worked on a woman with low self-esteem. Or a woman with high self-esteem that was just polite, or had such high interest level that it took some time to lower it. Once again, we can see a common trait with the true believer syndrome as it is impossible to prove this in every case. Therefore, one may reason that negs actually work as desired. Additionally, such belief could have been accepted just because an authority said so [103].
Saying no when appropriate, not being a pushover, and keeping your opinion is not a neg. Playful teasing is another example that is sometimes being recognized as a neg, although it is not. While mismatch might have several reasons such as low social intelligence, or unfamiliarity with the topic, it could be also done on a purpose*. The term "neg" is connected with the fame of seduction gurus and therefore just by using it, one may try to look like an expert to others**. Interestingly, some negs and "lame sentences" are being classified as playful teasing. Such misclassifications help to establish credibility of negs and experts, who recommend them.
*Different names could have been used on a purpose as a refactoring. In this case, the term refactoring stands for presenting information acquired somewhere else and using different names, so the deceiving guru appears as the original author to attract believers [115]. Refactoring is then a tool to perform a fraud. As seen with myth number 7, citations are not desirable for deceiving gurus. However, they still can cite well known works, only to change their original meanings.
**Although we might refute dating myths, a myth-teller cannot be clearly designated as a deceiver, if he tells what he believes in.
Notice the possibility for reasoning that as long as the playful teasing works, we should not dismiss the expert just because he uses wrong name for it. In such case, you've justified why to believe a source of flawed information. This is another symptom of the true believer syndrome.
The myth about negs could be used to reason myth number 6 as a truth as no particular attitude traits are required. However, other limitations have to be ignored in order to succeed with such reasoning. This also includes the major drawback of negs – difficulty of keeping her personal interest level high. Even some seduction gurus state that long-term relationship is a different game. Apparently, there is "something" fundamentally wrong with negs.
I definitively do not say to be honest and open up to the point, when you effectively give up control over your life. But some practices looks to me like if they came right from sickos' world.
Perhaps, a long-term relationship takes more than seeing your partner as a piece of nicely packed meat to be handled with manipulation? But try telling it to a man, who was rejected with scorn, or true reasons for rejection***. So, it won't be such wonder, if his moral principles would break down. Especially, if he is attacked with a well-engineered deception. And notice, he is frustrated – see myth number 2. Do not ignore that deceiving insinuation seeds doubts. Thus, even if he was not rejected with scorn, he might start to think so under the influence of propaganda. And because of all those noble statements, he starts considering the manipulation as a fair recompense for his rejection. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Only, he has a little problem of thinking straight right now. On the other hand, he may still agree that a manipulation is a bad think, if this fact is given clearly to him. In such case, it is possible to disarm guilty feelings with a little bit of reasoning and ill logic. "As long as you can tell what a bad thing is, you won't do harm. You just make both of you happy by becoming and giving her the man she desires." So, is it clear to you now, how it is possible that a manipulation such as e.g. this myth could be considered as a good thing?
***Some people claim they will be happier with being rejected clearly as they get sick of lame excuses, when they don't catch the drift soon enough. It's simple – don't ask for things you cannot withstand. Don't blame her for excusing or radio silence, since you should already know that she deals in concrete terms, when she wants to see you. Telling a sicko to back off could be a dangerous task. So, it is better to use some excuse instead of plain facts.
Think of the power of social engineering and self-deception first, before you buy into any "sure-fire" seduction teaching that claims to make you happy. Think of the possibility, what could happen to your personality. But nothing of what is described here could not have happened to you, right? She's not necessarily the one, who will get manipulated. She might leave as she feels uncomfortable, or recognizes true nature of your game. But before you will even attempt to manipulate with her, you have to believe that the given technique is at least worth of a try. In a case of deception, it simply means you are not aware about what is going on. And asking you to give the technique some more shots (if the first one did not work) is a legitimate appeal as any working technique takes its training time. The more time you devote to the technique, the more you let them to work you. When dealing with a deceiving teaching, first to fall are people with minimum of dating experience. Teenagers don't have enough of previous experience to tell, what would happen if they would not start using the technique. Lonely people will improve their lives as the community welcomes them. Even if no woman will decide to stay with them, there will be an improvement. Thou shall praise thy guru.
10. Some claim is true for most of the population as it is based on average values
Anything has average value. And if anything goes wrong, it can be always attributed to those extremes, which were not covered by the claim. Obviously, the claim cannot be proven wrong then and therefore it cannot be considered as scientific one. This is related to myth number 7.
Moreover, having correct values simply does not imply that a correct procedure has been applied to interpret them. Just take a look above. Of course, we took the simplifying condition that the myth-creator actually used correct values. Deceiving guru, or a myth-believer, might have decided to use forged values, even if he had correct ones at his disposal.
Have you ever considered the possibility
that it's nothing more but smoke and mirrors?
PS: If this article looked to you like portraying women as the better half of mankind, exchange women with men and read it once more. Although, the article is given from man's perspective and therefore you might need to adjust few things. However, I'm sure you can handle it;-)
Picture: Blind Guardian – A Twist in the Myth
