Hey and welcome back.
After finishing my latest series on indirect game, I’ve decided to make a few more posts covering aspects of the topic that did not make it into my series or respond to questions and comments that I have seen in the comment sections.
Today I want to debunk the idea that women are always aware of your intentions, as if they were ultra-intuitive super-computers.
This flawed argument is often used as a sort of counterargument to indirect game.
The argument goes as follows:
“What’s the point of going indirect, if she knows that you are hitting on her anyway?”
Followed up with:
“So, you might as well be direct about your intentions.”
I see this argument often, and every time I read it my eyes hurt.
There are false beliefs involved in this line of thinking.
I always wonder how this idea first appeared.
It seems to be a form of projection of male thinking onto women (yes, we are wired differently). And yet I have no clear idea where such notions came from.
What I can say is that this line of reasoning is wrong:
-
The first dimension is that "women can sense what your true intentions are – they can sense you are hitting on them". This is false, although there are some nuances
-
Even if we were to assume the above is indeed correct (or that elements of it may at times be true), then it is still not a reason for going direct
So, on both levels, the whole argument is flawed, and this line of thought can be safely thrown into the wastebasket.
This is what this post is about, debunking this line of thought by discussing these two dimensions.
Comments
I am still not completely
I am still not completely convinced either.
A girl most likely knows why you are asking HER about where the nearest Starbucks is, or for her opinion on pictures of your pet, if you could have easily asked the 60 year old dude nearby instead. They aren't stupid.
Both direct and indirect game can work for sure - I simply don't like coming up with the seemingly complex routines indirect appears to necessitate and prefer to open direct followed by some kind of tease/stack. I need to field test some indirect material just to make sure I'm not hindering myself and let the data give me the answer.
Which brings me to why these articles have not really been useful - they are 100% theory and completely lacking in ay practical tips or examples. You need to throw in a few infields and routines to make these concepts stick with your readers.
Actually... I understand it
Actually... I understand it very well and I know what Alek means by going indirect... although I also use Direct (semi-direct) Openers... what makes the difference with other types of direct bottle openers is, as Todd says, the premise that you want to establish (nature of the conversation) from the man-to-woman type, but it doesn't mean that the only way to be "Direct" is to go and tell her that "you look like an attractive/sexy girl and I wanted to come and meet you" because it is a bottle opener that gives away all your validation, it loses the mystery and you put it on a pedestal (you chase it). . making you put in the sack of another type more than the flirt chases ... so in effect that type of opener where your premise is "Direct man to woman" is not very impressive because it is very common that the girl listens and if initially you do not find attractive or you're not his type I doubt that it works ... as todd says are more refusals that the successes are doing with that style of direct opener a game of numbers where you force the girl to make a quick decision to accept your interest in her without knowing you enough ...
So Todd V, designed a system to open and show Premise (intention man to woman) with certain levels of subtlety ... from the most direct (newcomers) ... intermediate (semi-direct interest / subtle / moderate) ... to the most indirect / subtle / nonverbal (Advanced) ...
And so it is not necessary to go so direct to communicate the same message of the Premise (this interaction is man to woman and not friend to friend)...
Even though you can go semi-straight... it doesn't mean you are giving away all your validation because you are not necessarily putting it on a pedestal to flatter it just because of its physical attractiveness... it is more subtle when it comes to showing interest
For example, an opener of this scale is a push-pull opener:
Ex: hey. You seem to be someone interesting to meet even though I don't know if it's just my impression of you.
In that one I show you a little bit of interest but I take it away from you... at the same time (I don't give you all the validation) and I indicate to you that if I can be interested but it doesn't mean that you have already "earned" me... so the framework that I am establishing is to evaluate you to see if you are the type of girl that could fulfill the role of a type of relationship in the future.
With the Indirect Opener.. because I like the style of Daniel adebayo.. for example:
Ask a (nearby) address...
And create curiosity baits to intrigue her and invest in getting my information and get her hooked... once she starts to show more interest if I show more interest in her...
I can also use a verbal rating ring after I open a proxy... and when she skips my ring (gets rated) I show her interest this is a form of my proxy model...
For example:
Me: you are always this sociable with people when you meet them (Hoop)
She: if I like to talk and relate.. bla bla (qualifies)
You: Good. Now I'm a little curious to know more about you ... tell me what is your story (show interest) by asking questions ...
Leave a Comment