Yet more NLP BS

Maia said:
In relation to human beings, you might get studies theorizing about the reasons why bystanders tend to be friendly to recipients of aggression, or how social conflict models can inform us about models of psychopathology, or how psychopathology in great apes might relate to human mental disorders. So I didn't have any luck finding that study, although I don't have any doubt that somebody did do it somewhere. I'd be interested for sure in seeing it if you can remember where it was, Lothario. (Would you like some salsa?) :)
Click to expand...

I can't find the actual study. I did find a news article that mentions it.

JFrankA said:
Just did a little searching. Things look bad for us guys no matter what!!! :D

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/378


Sheesh!!! Not even alcohol helps us guys!!! We are dooooooooooooomed!!!!! :D
Click to expand...

I'll get my "revenge" as soon as i get my NLP practicioner certificate. I'll just need 5 minutes alone with Megan Fox. She'll be head over heels in love with me if i can anchor properly. Do you guys think i should wear goggles? :D
 
JFrankA said:
I've heard that too, but I'd like to actually see the study of it. From anedotal experience, if you bring a woman to a strip club with female strippers, the strippers will hang around longer... :D

But as to making a man more attractive because he has a "wing-girl" hanging on him, I'd really like to see a serious study done on that.



I have heard (not read the evidence), that simply giving a reason for a favor increases the chances of people granting favors over just simply asking. So perhaps, just adding anything to the "can you do me a favor" question would cause an increase.

I still of the opinion that this whole thing is nothing more than simple psychological tricks that you can learn by studying stage magic. There are ways to momentarily distract the "critical thinking" of a person. Note the word I used: "distract". It's nothing more than that. Any "sustaining of distraction from critical thinking" is up to the desire of the recipient.

What these people are doing is taking basic, simple techinques and blowing them up into a miracle. Just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

You're right about the stage magic tricks.

Mystery is a magician, so no surprise there.

When I said: 'uses a lot of evolutionary biology', I probably should have said: 'uses a lot of scientific sounding rationalisations for his approach' .

Since you do stage hypnotism, you probably have the whole system in focus.
Choosing the 'victim' (someone willing to be hypnotised) , using suggestion etc. etc.

ETA: Walking into a club with a pretty girl on your arm probably has lots of effect. It is the reason that book covers often say: 'International best-seller' or 'one million copies sold'.
The mechanism is well used in marketing. "If other people like it, I'll probably like it too". See Cialdini's book: Influence.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
You're right about the stage magic tricks.

Mystery is a magician, so no surprise there.
Click to expand...

Most likely true. Probably he read all the mentalist tricks he could find and came up with this scam.

When I said: 'uses a lot of evolutionary biology', I probably should have said: 'uses a lot of scientific sounding rationalisations for his approach' .

Since you do stage hypnotism, you probably have the whole system in focus.
Choosing the 'victim' (someone willing to be hypnotised) , using suggestion etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the key to the whole thing: finding someone willing. :)

ETA: Walking into a club with a pretty girl on your arm probably has lots of effect. It is the reason that book covers often say: 'International best-seller' or 'one million copies sold'.
The mechanism is well used in marketing. "If other people like it, I'll probably like it too". See Cialdini's book: Influence.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

I'm trying to think of the reverse. If a girl comes into a bar with a guy on her arm, does that make her more attractive? I can remember being attracted to some girls who had boyfriends, but I can't honestly say that they were more attractive.
 
JFrankA said:
I'm trying to think of the reverse. If a girl comes into a bar with a guy on her arm, does that make her more attractive? I can remember being attracted to some girls who had boyfriends, but I can't honestly say that they were more attractive.
Click to expand...

Frustratingly, I've become more popular with the ladies since I got married.
It's just that:

A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Frustratingly, I've become more popular with the ladies since I got married.
It's just that:

A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.
Click to expand...

Those two things I go along with, and I'll go on to say that those attitudes aren't restricted to females. I think both genders have these attitudes. :-)
 
Maia said:
I don't personally know anyone (of the female gender, I mean) who would be more rather than less interested in some guy who showed up with two women already hanging off of him, not to mention the pirate ripoff/weird hat/scuba mask/pimp cane thing.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised. I immediately thought of two places down here in South Florida where Mystery would probably have decent luck with his craziness. South Beach and the Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood. Both locations have tons and tons of bars and clubs populated by scantily clad drunk girls. I have seen people "peacocking" before and yes, others will come up to them simply to comment on their choice of clothing. (Mystery Method spoiler alert!) It's then up to the "peacocker" to hold their attention and ensure they don't leave, thus adding to their "social proof" by apparently "holding court" and being the center of attention. This obviously doesn't work on a regular basis, because (JfrankA, Lothario, all together now...) it's a numbers game.

If I had no shame, a viking helmet and a scrolling marquee belt buckle, I guarantee that I could go to the casino here on a Saturday and meet 500 women. Easily. How many of those girls are drunk enough and stupid enough for me to take home? Hell, even if it's 0.2%, I win.

Anyway, I don't doubt Mystery's claims (what was it, 250 women out of 10,000?). Obviously Mystery thinks $500 for a book and $10K for an in-field seminar is worth a staggering 2.5% success rate. Imagine if he didn't use NLP!!

Eddie Dane said:
A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.
Click to expand...

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)
 
MikeSun5 said:
I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)
Click to expand...

If I had been aware of this phenomenon, I'd just bought a wedding ring instead of taking the whole package with sharing my space, intrusive Italian family and flowery design elements in my interior.

*goes back to nursing midlife crisis*
 
MikeSun5 said:
If I had no shame, a viking helmet and a scrolling marquee belt buckle, I guarantee that I could go to the casino here on a Saturday and meet 500 women. Easily. How many of those girls are drunk enough and stupid enough for me to take home? Hell, even if it's 0.2%, I win.

Anyway, I don't doubt Mystery's claims (what was it, 250 women out of 10,000?). Obviously Mystery thinks $500 for a book and $10K for an in-field seminar is worth a staggering 2.5% success rate. Imagine if he didn't use NLP!!
Click to expand...

It wasn't Mystery. I heard those claims from a guy called Sinn, a former Mystery Method student who now sells his own products. His "magic formula" is slightly different from Mystery's and according to my friends, it's the state of the art of pick-up artistry. If i can find the "algorithm" i'll post it here. With a 2,5% sucess rate, this guy just can't be wrong. Right? ;) (As i think about it, 2,5 is a really low sucess rate, isn't it? Like, below average?)

By the way, i've seen pictures of this guy with some ugly women... hedious actually.

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)
Click to expand...

I can vouch for this. I can also vouch for the fact that it works both ways.

Anyway, this is all common sense. Once a product becomes in short supply in the market, prices rise. The same goes for dating and relationships :).
 
Thank you for the link! :) However... I can think of one major difference in the way I'd have done that study: screening participants for their scores on various psychological tests, and conducting statistical analyses on the relationships which various test scores had to the findings of the study. Without that, the methodological problems are just too great to come to any real conclusions, IMHO. Still, I agree that it's interesting-- although it may not be in the way that anybody would want!

Some people, both male and female, are undoubtedly more interested in what they can't have when it comes to dating partners, but the question is the relationship this desire has to the psychological profile of the person in question. I can tell y'all right now, as a psychiatric social worker who's worked with clients who have borderline personality disorder, that when it comes to a very extreme form of the "wanting the romantic partner you can't have" syndrome, it's a real red flag for BPD. Guys... since that seems to be the gender balance on this particular thread... let me give you a head's up... you do not want to end up in a relationship with a woman who has BPD or any of its milder forms, trust me. It can seem flattering at first, but by the time you've called the cops for the thirty-eighth time in a row because she's sitting outside your house every single night at three in the morning...BPD really is an illness and I don't want to make light of it at ALL, but when researchers don't do psychological screening on their subjects, they don't really even know what it is they're studying (and it's actually kind of a pet peeve of mine.) See how you're getting all this free advice? :) I could be charging $500.00 for this! (No, I couldn't. I couldn't live with myself, and I'd have to wear some bizarre outfit and have a web page... maybe an antique diving helmet...
 
Maia said:
Some people, both male and female, are undoubtedly more interested in what they can't have when it comes to dating partners...
Click to expand...

All too true, but it's amazing how many people are willing to jump that fence. Of course, seeing is believing.

I wonder if Ross Jeffries is on that site?
 
Ah, here it is. It's a little off-thread, but this is the most recent version of Mystery Method:

"You open with situational comfort.
You break rapport, to start the girl investing.
You expand on that by small hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by running attraction material.
You test for attraction by compliance tests/escalation.
You capitalise on her compliance, by medium hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by moving into rapport comfort.
You break rapport again, to make her invest more (usually break is sexual)
You expand on her investment by large hoop/sexually qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by escalating, moving into sexual comfort.

Any time she doesn't comply, you cycle back to where you were. If she doesn't small hoop comply, you cycle back to situational comfort.

If she doesn't medium hoop/compliance qualify, cycle back to attraction. In this case, remove touch completely and cycle back as this is mostly escalation compliance.

If she doesn't large hoop/sexually qualify, cycle back to rapport comfort.

As you can see, qualification is the key to this model, along with rewarding. She qualifies herself, and you reward, then increase the qualification etc. Sinn's model is difficult, as it is not linear and is a cycle, so I can't do it justice without a diagram, as some of the phases 'overlap'. To describe it best, breaking rapport and qualification 'overlap'; attraction and qualification 'overlap'; sexual comfort and qualification 'overlap.

Breaking rapport and qualification overlap: when you break rapport, you generally do it by teasing. The nature of teasing is that the girl is less cool than you in some way. By breaking rapport you are 'qualifying' her to prove otherwise.

Attraction and qualification overlap: when you run attraction material, you test to see if she is attracted by moving her/asking for compliance, or physically escalating. This is compliance qualification. You are 'qualifying' her to accept your escalating touch.

Sexual comfort and qualification overlap: when moving towards sexual comfort, you are constantly 'qualifying' her sexuality, primarily to turn her on so she feels comfortable getting sexual with you."



I can't make any sense out of this. I am too dumb to be a pick-up artist.
 
All I can really take from what he's saying is: that guy has some serious misogyny issues.
 
Mystery? Yeah, probably. But for some weird reason, I keep imagining hula hoops. Mystery in a PotC puppet show-reject outfit trying to keep small, medium, and large hula hoops all going at once. It's not a pretty picture. :P
 
Lothario said:
Ah, here it is. It's a little off-thread, but this is the most recent version of Mystery Method:

"You open with situational comfort.
You break rapport, to start the girl investing.
You expand on that by small hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by running attraction material.
You test for attraction by compliance tests/escalation.
You capitalise on her compliance, by medium hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by moving into rapport comfort.
You break rapport again, to make her invest more (usually break is sexual)
You expand on her investment by large hoop/sexually qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by escalating, moving into sexual comfort.

Any time she doesn't comply, you cycle back to where you were. If she doesn't small hoop comply, you cycle back to situational comfort.

If she doesn't medium hoop/compliance qualify, cycle back to attraction. In this case, remove touch completely and cycle back as this is mostly escalation compliance.

If she doesn't large hoop/sexually qualify, cycle back to rapport comfort.

As you can see, qualification is the key to this model, along with rewarding. She qualifies herself, and you reward, then increase the qualification etc. Sinn's model is difficult, as it is not linear and is a cycle, so I can't do it justice without a diagram, as some of the phases 'overlap'. To describe it best, breaking rapport and qualification 'overlap'; attraction and qualification 'overlap'; sexual comfort and qualification 'overlap.

Breaking rapport and qualification overlap: when you break rapport, you generally do it by teasing. The nature of teasing is that the girl is less cool than you in some way. By breaking rapport you are 'qualifying' her to prove otherwise.

Attraction and qualification overlap: when you run attraction material, you test to see if she is attracted by moving her/asking for compliance, or physically escalating. This is compliance qualification. You are 'qualifying' her to accept your escalating touch.

Sexual comfort and qualification overlap: when moving towards sexual comfort, you are constantly 'qualifying' her sexuality, primarily to turn her on so she feels comfortable getting sexual with you."



I can't make any sense out of this. I am too dumb to be a pick-up artist.
Click to expand...

The sad thing for me, personally, is that I have a good idea what he's talking about..... :boggled:

I may be stating the obvious here, but here's what I basically see from this.

Seems to me that mainly what this does is give the poor sap the belief that he has complete control over the situation. I think, and this is from personal experience, a lot of men who are not successful in meeting women feeel that they don't have any control when talking to a woman - she basically holds all the cards.

There's a lot of "come here - go away play" that the guy supposed to do, and a lot of guys feel that women play this game.

Also, there's a bunch of "back up" plans, so the guy feels like he's reinforced.

Finally, if it fails, there's a feeling of "well, I tried EVERYTHING" so the blame of failure shifts from himself to the woman.

Basically it turns the idea of meeting women into a video game and this method is the walkthrough.

...how "guy" is that? :D
 
JFrankA said:
Basically it turns the idea of meeting women into a video game and this method is the walkthrough.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Truth hurts. Unfortunately, the walkthrough is only for the drunk-American version of the game. Doesn't work on PAL systems.

There's a lot of "come here - go away play" that the guy supposed to do, and a lot of guys feel that women play this game.

Also, there's a bunch of "back up" plans, so the guy feels like he's reinforced.
Click to expand...

These seem to be the key selling points (if there are any at all). They shill the idea that if you have these "tactics," you'll be successful. One thing that most girl-hungry nerds overlook is the fact that a lot of the "tactics" are simply NORMAL CONVERSATION dressed up as pickup artist techniques. Hell, if I used clever words and bullet lists to recreate a regular conversation between people, I could probably sound like a shrink or something. For example, here's how people meet each other, but it could look like a pickup tactic if it was dressed up a little more:

-- Introduction. Make eye contact when you introduce yourself, shake hands and repeat their name back to them when they say it.
-- Be polite. Give the person the attention and respect that you would like to have them give you. Make sure to smile.
-- Become familiar. Ask questions to learn about the person. Answer questions they ask of you. Try not to be too talkative, but speak up if there are lulls or awkward pauses in the conversation.

...I was going to go on, but this is getting super redundant. :D
 
MikeSun5 said:
These seem to be the key selling points (if there are any at all). They shill the idea that if you have these "tactics," you'll be successful. One thing that most girl-hungry nerds overlook is the fact that a lot of the "tactics" are simply NORMAL CONVERSATION dressed up as pickup artist techniques.
Click to expand...

Actually, like i've said before, they claim it's more than normal conversation. For instance, Mystery claims that "negging" will make the girl self-conscious, thus decreasing her social value while increasing yours. Ross Jeffries claims that his NLP speech patterns will make the girl go under some sort of hypnotic trance. This guy Sinn claims that "qualifying" (asking her about her qualities, what she does, etc) will make it seem like she's proving herself and not the other way around, therefore making her more attracted.

Basically, they all claim that these psychological tricks will give you an edge over the competition.

The big questions, IMO, are 1) Is there any real psychology behind it and 2) Can they really increase your odds or is it just a matter of how many women you approach?
 
Lothario said:
Actually, like i've said before, they claim it's more than normal conversation. For instance, Mystery claims that "negging" will make the girl self-conscious, thus decreasing her social value while increasing yours. Ross Jeffries claims that his NLP speech patterns will make the girl go under some sort of hypnotic trance. This guy Sinn claims that "qualifying" (asking her about her qualities, what she does, etc) will make it seem like she's proving herself and not the other way around, therefore making her more attracted.

Basically, they all claim that these psychological tricks will give you an edge over the competition.

The big questions, IMO, are 1) Is there any real psychology behind it and 2) Can they really increase your odds or is it just a matter of how many women you approach?
Click to expand...

Well, all I can tell you is what I told "Brian" on the night of the long conversation about the Mystery Method: girls who stick around after the "negging" are the ones who don't like or value themselves very much. Ross Jeffries is insane, IMHO... Sinn is just taking a normal part of human conversation and making it sound like an occult secret... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm doing storyboards on Sunday afternoon for that NLP parody YouTube video. :)
 
Maia said:
Well, all I can tell you is what I told "Brian" on the night of the long conversation about the Mystery Method: girls who stick around after the "negging" are the ones who don't like or value themselves very much. Ross Jeffries is insane, IMHO... Sinn is just taking a normal part of human conversation and making it sound like an occult secret... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm doing storyboards on Sunday afternoon for that NLP parody YouTube video. :)
Click to expand...

I am very anxious to see this, Maia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom