Author Taramere Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Well, that's what I see in Mystery's approach which I firmly disagree with. Why would you want to bring someone down to your level of low self-esteem or lower? Instead, why not change your approach to liking yourself and bringing someone along to a higher level of positivity? I recall in The Game, Neil Strauss talked a fair bit about Mystery's narcissism and the fragility of his personality that seemed to be associated with it. Here's an article on one of our favourite subjects (narcissism) that I think is especially interesting in relation to PUA theory: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4999182/Shame-and-narcissim-therapeutic-relevance.html Theorists such as Kohut have asserted that shame and rage are "the two principal experiential and behavioral manifestations of the disturbed narcissistic equilibrium" ...The "shame-rage spiral" observed in clinical research has been noted to be particularly characteristic of narcissists...The shame-rage dynamic is the phenomenon of becoming angry after being shamed. Shame that has been transformed through regulation into some other emotion, usually anger or hostility, is called bypassed shame... It is postulated that shame emerges out of self-depletion and that narcissistic rage emerges out of self-fragmentation.... Rage is more tolerable to individuals with NPD than shame and envy, which are associated with helplessness, a sense of ugliness, and impotence..... Also, narcissistic hubris may contribute to aggression and hostility, interpersonal problems, relationship conflict, and a host of self-destructive behaviors...This article speculates that pride in patients with NPD might function as an emotional buffer against the threats of the external world, and, when necessary, they defend this buffer by means of hostile or aggressive acts. Watch the first part of this video of Mystery demonstrating a "neg". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgP6XpNqng&feature=related He's showing an angry response to a woman going "ugh" in response to a story he's telling about blow jobs. I think a normal guy response would be to laugh about her being a little uptight, but to not take such a comment personally. My sense is, however, that he does take a comment like that personally...and responds with an attack, though he's attempting to cloak it in the "laughing it off" manner that a more genuinely secure and confident man would employ. I think it's likely that in his younger days Mystery responded with outright and obvious anger to any perceived negative from a woman ("blow jobs...ugh!") and he learned that women don't respond well to blatant anger from men. So he maybe observed how other, more secure, men would respond and mimicked that. A lot of very normal men might automatically throw out a casual insult, but with Mystery "the neg" is a big deal. The level of thought he puts into it gives away, I think, the anger/shame that he's learned (through imitating other men) to control. Learning control over it would make him feel more in control of the situation (and the woman), but it's still there. If these individuals lose their narcissistic feelings of easy superiority, they become irritable, annoyed, and subject to repeated bouts of dejection and humiliation... Acting out, and related lack of self-control, will reveal a significant character failure to the outside world, namely a lack of dignity/gentleness, a feature that is supremely desired by many persons with NPD. This article concludes that after acting out, the defense of patients with NPD apparently melts down as a consequence of episodic burn-out and emptiness, and shame emerges and seems inescapable. The Game's references to Mystery's frequent breakdowns suggested that this happens to him. That he can mimic the cool response to feeling shamed by others for a while (using negs etc) but doesn't have it together sufficiently to permit himself to experience feelings of shame and then manage them in a normal manner - eg by being honest about them, getting a sense of proportion about them and laughing them off or dealing with them in some other proportionate manner.
Stockalone Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Well, that's what I see in Mystery's approach which I firmly disagree with. Why would you want to bring someone down to your level of low self-esteem or lower? Instead, why not change your approach to liking yourself and bringing someone along to a higher level of positivity? I'll have to take a closer look then. I have read about those negative compliments but didn't view that as the most important lesson or the preferred method. Perhaps that is the case with that Mystery dude. Most of the things I read were about ignoring/overcoming anxiety, as far as that is possible. Then to make sure to not forget about the usual social niceties, like smiling, approaching strangers, being humourous, etc. You don't have to place someone on a pedestal, to be positive. If you do that, it's unrealistic for both of you, in that sooner or later they're going to fall off the pedestal due to no one being perfect, the amount of pressure you put onto the other person, as well as your own inability to maintain that kind of energy. They are also talking about not putting women on a pedestal. They do take it to the opposite extreme though. Baiting women into proving themselves to them when there is no earthly reason for the woman to do so. Keeping the woman on her toes, wondering. But yes, to systematically break down her self-esteem is stupid. Even if that works in your favour right now, in a longterm relationship that will never work in your favour. Making your SO's life miserable is not a smart idea. Then again, PUAs look for the short-term, what benefits them, not what would benefit both partners in the long run. What I find useful, or at least interesting to take a closer look at, are things that give me ideas how to approach women because there it makes nearly no difference. Whatever my intentions (good or bad), I will always have to approach the woman. So, getting tips on how to do that and "survive" (not becoming a nervous wreck) the initial conversation is something that PUA can provide. To teach men how to get a foot in the door with women. There's no need to play these PUA games. Just keep talking to person after person, regardless of gender. The more you come out your shell and get used to social interaction, the easier it gets to read social cues. I am not very sociable. I am an introvert and it literally drains me when I have to socialize and in most cases, I'd rather be doing things on my own that I know I will enjoy.
Trialbyfire Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I recall in The Game, Neil Strauss talked a fair bit about Mystery's narcissism and the fragility of his personality that seemed to be associated with it.After watching this and other clips, I agree that Mystery is a narcissist. Watch the first part of this video of Mystery demonstrating a "neg". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgP6XpNqng&feature=related He's showing an angry response to a woman going "ugh" in response to a story he's telling about blow jobs. I think a normal guy response would be to laugh about her being a little uptight, but to not take such a comment personally. My sense is, however, that he does take a comment like that personally...and responds with an attack, though he's attempting to cloak it in the "laughing it off" manner that a more genuinely secure and confident man would employ.Instead of a "Was that TMI? My apologies.", he attacked in an attempted offhand manner, to not only get a form of revenge, but to use it to manipulate a woman's natural social instinct to not give offense. Overall, if you watch the entire clip, Mystery blatantly uses people and openly admits to it. He's got all the signs of someone with NPD.
Phateless Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 There was a reality show which I found fascinating. The Game has very profound effects for a lot of people. It's mostly about self-improvement and understanding social dynamics, social protocol, etc. How many of you women read Cosmo? "How to get a guy to do X, Y, and Z, etc." What's the difference with this? You should all watch the show before you judge. Learning these things had profound effects for these men. For many of them, it gave them hope in life where before they had none. Is that a bad thing? http://www.vh1.com/shows/the_pickup_artist/season_1/video.jhtml For me, it helped me to figure out WTF is going on in some social situations where before I had no idea. I've never believed in lines, routines, or anything of the sort. 90% of the things I read just triggered epiphanies for past events and helped me to learn and grow. I am a better person for what I have learned.
butcher's hook Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Phateless I can kind of see where you are coming from. The thing is that the same women who are cutting up all these techniques here are also the same women who claim they will ONLY date "Alphamen". So it is that attitude in women that makes men resort to this kind of crap in the first place. Sort of a self fulfilled prophecy by the demands women put on men now a days.
sally4sara Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I think comparing the PUA crap with Cosmo is fair. The stuff you find in Cosmo is also counter-productive. I'm pretty sure the only reason why the magazine exists is because you have to stop reading 17 at some point. It is the same subject titles peppering a new cover for each issue. If you've read one of those mags, you've read them all. How many sex secrets can there possibly be let alone the ones guys wish you knew about but will never confess!
Phateless Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Like anything, it depends on what you do with it. I've never believed in putting on an elaborate show. Mostly it was learning how to flirt, how to NOT screw things up (for the first time in my life) and how to get a handle on my insecurities and eliminate the habits that were chasing women away.
butcher's hook Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 . I'm pretty sure the only reason why the magazine exists is because you have to stop reading 17 at some point. That was perfect! So true. :lmao:
donnamaybe Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 That was perfect! So true. :lmao: And why on God's green earth would one want to spend the amount of money expected for Cosmo on page after page filled with nearly nothing else but advertising? Hell, I often DVR shows so I can fast forward through the ads!
sally4sara Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 And why on God's green earth would one want to spend the amount of money expected for Cosmo on page after page filled with nearly nothing else but advertising? Hell, I often DVR shows so I can fast forward through the ads! Glossy print pages full of self defeating ick? Duh!.....why WOULDN'T you buy it?
grogster Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I think comparing the PUA crap with Cosmo is fair. The stuff you find in Cosmo is also counter-productive. I'm pretty sure the only reason why the magazine exists is because you have to stop reading 17 at some point. It is the same subject titles peppering a new cover for each issue. If you've read one of those mags, you've read them all. How many sex secrets can there possibly be let alone the ones guys wish you knew about but will never confess! I always feel so let down when I jump from a Cosmo title like "501 Super Sex Secrets to Get Him Coming Back for More" to the article, which discusses the importance of foreplay. Yawn. The thing about the mating game, regardless of labels, tricks, techniques employed, is to connect with the opposite sex. The tools employed are secondary.
butcher's hook Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 And why on God's green earth would one want to spend the amount of money expected for Cosmo on page after page filled with nearly nothing else but advertising? Why, to get to the secrets HE wants you to know but won't even confess, of course!! C'mon Donna!! :lmao:
Author Taramere Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Overall, if you watch the entire clip, Mystery blatantly uses people and openly admits to it. He's got all the signs of someone with NPD. I suspect that ironically his main appeal, for women, is associated with his fragility - and that they respond with a nurturing manner. Helping him to avoid the dreaded sense of shame. I remember watching an ex telling two of his friends a story about a completely inappropriate remark he'd made to someone earlier that day. He'd told me the story already. I'd expressed some dismay, and he'd laughed at me in that "you don't get why it's funny, silly you..." way. I'd left it at that. The moment he started telling his friends this story, I felt this sense of horror - because I knew instinctively that they weren't going to let him off the hook in the way that I'd done. Right enough, as he relayed the story (standing in the middle of the room, like some kind of entertainer) these two guys just sat there staring at him with expressions of stony horror. They just let the awful atmosphere hang there, and he stood there flustering, backpedalling and desperately trying to explain why the inappropriate comment he'd made was funny. I felt this awful sense of wanting to rescue him from himself. Perhaps that's what Mystery elicits in some women when he goes out dressed like a ridiculous creature and gets berated for it by other men. In his mind, he's demonstrating that he can peacock and survive - and is therefore a strong man....whereas a woman might see him as someone who needs to be protected from other men, feel an emotional response and mistake that for something positive. For me, it helped me to figure out WTF is going on in some social situations where before I had no idea. I've never believed in lines, routines, or anything of the sort. 90% of the things I read just triggered epiphanies for past events and helped me to learn and grow. I am a better person for what I have learned. If you tend to be a little reserved, and that show has helped you to be more relaxed and outgoing around women I think that's great. Potentially it's entertaining pop psychology that could achieve a good effect for a lot of people who are just a bit shy but don't have any underlying personality disorder. It's the ones who are pretty badly messed up, and who seriously believe stuff like this can fix them who probably have to worry.
sally4sara Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Ladies! You're suppose to look at them while your mother grocery shops; not actually buy them! So glad I did! What would life be for me now if I never learned the important lessons of flipping my hair before smiling at a guy or putting perfume on the back of my knees. That is important stuff!
Thaddeus Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Gotta remember that a lot of this stuff that Strauss and that Mystery character come up with is actually based in clinical psychology. There's another book that's written in a different style but uses exactly - and I mean EXACTLY - the same sorts of psychological gamesmanship as the basis for success. It's called How To Make Someone Fall in Love with You in 90 Minutes or Less by Nicholas Boothman. I did some work with Boothman in one of his other seminars ("How To Connect in Business" was the one that I worked on with him). And he's about as far from a PUA as you'd ever want to meet. But his research is sound. Much of it is based in both cognitive behavior theory and neuro-linguistic programming. And I find it wonderfully amusing to hear from some (not all) of the women on the site that, "Such lines and whatnot would NEVER work on me!" Oh yeah? It's MARKETING, people. And, like it or not, we're ALL influenced by marketing even if we don't believe it. Nobody likes to believe they can be manipulated. Nobody wants to believe that another person can be so influential. Everyone figures that, given enough time and input, they can "figure out" how the magic trick is done. But the fact is that the people who are the most adamant in disbelieving these techniques are the ones most likely to fall for them. That's no disrepect intended to anyone here, it's simply a factual reality.
Trialbyfire Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 The thing about the mating game, regardless of labels, tricks, techniques employed, is to connect with the opposite sex. The tools employed are secondary.I've bolded the key word and quoted it for effect! The more you mess with someone's head, the less likely you're going to have any kind of connection. If you're able to "get" someone with these kinds of methodologies, you can bet they're pretty messed up in the head already!
Phateless Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Phateless I can kind of see where you are coming from. The thing is that the same women who are cutting up all these techniques here are also the same women who claim they will ONLY date "Alphamen". So it is that attitude in women that makes men resort to this kind of crap in the first place. Sort of a self fulfilled prophecy by the demands women put on men now a days. Game is about figuring out what women respond to and learning to do just that. How is that any different from what women have always done? Many women do tend to go for the cocky, arrogant, alpha-male style A-holes and pass up the nice guy. Game is about figuring out what she likes about those A-holes without becoming an A-hole yourself. We get the girl and she gets a nice guy. Everybody wins. It's not that she wants an A-hole, it's that she wants a strong, confident man who can show her a good time and isn't burdened by his own insecurities. Game is only designed to give dorks like me a better understanding of how women and social situations work. The thing about the mating game, regardless of labels, tricks, techniques employed, is to connect with the opposite sex. The tools employed are secondary. 100% agree! The goal is to have a true and genuine person to person connection with someone you love. My current gf is absolutely my best friend, and some of the things I learned are what enabled me to make the connection. The old me would have screwed it up by now, I'm sure. A lot of the things I've learned echo some of the best advice I've heard here on LoveShack.
Author Taramere Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Gotta remember that a lot of this stuff that Strauss and that Mystery character come up with is actually based in clinical psychology. Yes, which is why it's called pop psychology. Clinical psychology aims at helping people to function in a more healthy way which might involve prolonging gratification but achieving more happiness in the long term. This kind of pop psychology is aimed at getting gratification asap, without taking the longer term consequences into account. So it's appealing to a larger number of people not just because it's outlined in simpler more eye-grabbing terminology, but also because it appeals to the very strong drive towards instant gratification. And I find it wonderfully amusing to hear from some (not all) of the women on the site that, "Such lines and whatnot would NEVER work on me!" Oh yeah? It's MARKETING, people. And, like it or not, we're ALL influenced by marketing even if we don't believe it. But people do vary in their knowledge of how marketing strategies are applied, how certain messages (that could have a negative longer term impact) can be resisted - and generally, how to resist other people's attempts to manipulate them into behaving in certain ways. But the fact is that the people who are the most adamant in disbelieving these techniques are the ones most likely to fall for them. That's no disrepect intended to anyone here, it's simply a factual reality. Could you explain why you regard that as a factual reality?
Phateless Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I've bolded the key word and quoted it for effect! The more you mess with someone's head, the less likely you're going to have any kind of connection. If you're able to "get" someone with these kinds of methodologies, you can bet they're pretty messed up in the head already! TBF - most of it is teaching basic people skills. It's not dishonest tactics or misleading ploys. It's teaching how to relate to people, based in psychology. I think you should do some more research before passing such harsh judgment.
Trialbyfire Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 TBF - most of it is teaching basic people skills. It's not dishonest tactics or misleading ploys. It's teaching how to relate to people, based in psychology. I think you should do some more research before passing such harsh judgment.Phateless, the aspects of negging and using people, be it friends or "eff partners", is more than enough research for me.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 There was a reality show which I found fascinating. The Game has very profound effects for a lot of people. It's mostly about self-improvement and understanding social dynamics, social protocol, etc. How many of you women read Cosmo? "How to get a guy to do X, Y, and Z, etc." What's the difference with this? You should all watch the show before you judge. Learning these things had profound effects for these men. For many of them, it gave them hope in life where before they had none. Is that a bad thing? http://www.vh1.com/shows/the_pickup_artist/season_1/video.jhtml For me, it helped me to figure out WTF is going on in some social situations where before I had no idea. I've never believed in lines, routines, or anything of the sort. 90% of the things I read just triggered epiphanies for past events and helped me to learn and grow. I am a better person for what I have learned.much akin to being initiated into the Dionysian Mysteries and observing the hierophant removing the minotaur mask and point to the water nymph suckling the goat
butcher's hook Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I did some work with Boothman in one of his other seminars ("How To Connect in Business" was the one that I worked on with him). And he's about as far from a PUA as you'd ever want to meet. But his research is sound. Much of it is based in both cognitive behavior theory and neuro-linguistic programming. And I find it wonderfully amusing to hear from some (not all) of the women on the site that, "Such lines and whatnot would NEVER work on me!" Oh yeah? It's MARKETING, people. And, like it or not, we're ALL influenced by marketing even if we don't believe it. Nobody likes to believe they can be manipulated. Nobody wants to believe that another person can be so influential. Everyone figures that, given enough time and input, they can "figure out" how the magic trick is done. But the fact is that the people who are the most adamant in disbelieving these techniques are the ones most likely to fall for them. That's no disrespect intended to anyone here, it's simply a factual reality. Fantastic examples and I agree with everything you said. I was going to give the example of persuasion techniques that are taught on a corporate level. These are cognitive techniques that are used in business all the time. The entire business community is founded on the platform that you just described. Personally I believe in all of it and I do think these are powerful tools of communication. I have no doubt that a lot of what Mystery's tools are based on are very much the same psychological principals they use in business coaching. The problem is that when it comes in the form of a lanky, greasy clown who dress like a "Dark Rave" circa 1992 reject, and twists their theories around to use disrespect as the underlying driving force, it's a lot harder to digest the concept as something noteworthy. But I have no doubt it must work on many. If I didn't find Mystery so repulsive, to the point that I would not even want to be seen talking to him in public, I think he might have a chance at doing some of his shtick on me.
Thaddeus Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Clinical psychology aims at helping people to function in a more healthy way which might involve prolonging gratification but achieving more happiness in the long term. Agreed. That's what cognitive behavior theory is all about, and the therapeutic equivalent based on that theory, cognitive behavior therapy. And that's the basis for much of what Mystery, Strauss and Boothman use.
Trialbyfire Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Business is business and business is a game, many times a high stakes one. IMO, I wouldn't use business methodology to close a deal, on opposite gender relationships or friendships.
butcher's hook Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 See the thing is that I could easily and unsuspectingly fall for some of those techniques, but the caveat is that he has to come in the form of someone I would already find somewhat esthetically pleasing. If I find him revolting, like I would all these grease balls, there isn't a technique in sight that is going to make me change my mind. So really the bottom line is, does the pick up technique really matter when you already dismiss someone because esthetically you find them displeasing? Unlike professional chemistry, romantic chemistry takes into consideration the overall physical aspect a lot more.
Recommended Posts