Insights from the Mind of a Seducer

Quick blurb here, I’ll get a proper post up for today in a little while.

Just read about a fascinating cognitive bias that’s been tested over the course of multiple experiments and shown to likely be a real phenomenon. The bias is this: incompetent people tend to overestimate their knowledge relative to others, assuming that they already know it all, while competent people, realizing how much there is to a topic, tend to underestimate their knowledge relative to others, assuming that others know as much or more than they do.

So someone who’s ignorant of a topic may well stand on a soap box and loudly cry out about the “truth,” while someone who’s far more informed and competent may feel he knows but a drop in the bucket and remain quiet, confident that others out there know more. I’ve long been wary of people who proclaim to know all the answers, and held them to a higher degree of skepticism than anyone else… the proposed cognitive bias in question, Dunning-Kruger, gives me some scientific justification to that skepticism.

These days Sebastian Drake’s VAC attraction model is all but forgotten in the seduction community. There’s been a gold rush toward “natural game” and at the same time a supposed abandonment of the previously ubiquitous “routine-based game,” the ever-present 800-pound gorilla in pick up circles half a decade ago.

But in the rush toward “natural game” some of its pillars have been missed or marginalized by its new champions – the former routine guys who’ve turned over a new leaf. Nowadays, most everyone in seduction will tell you he practices “natural game”, but what many propose to teach quite often are routines that run a little more smoothly and aren’t called by the label “routines.” They’re dressed up a little and called “natural game” instead. But if you pay close attention… yep, they’re still routines.

That’s why you won’t see the term “natural game” anywhere on this site. In my mind, it’s become synonymous with slightly-evolved-but-thinly-veiled routine-based game. Nothing personal against routines or the guys who use ‘em; it just ain’t my style and I’d rather not be associated with them. The “natural game” pitched by most these days is a little smoother and a little more direct than the routine-based game of yore, but it’s lacking in a lot of the teaching of core concepts of what really makes guys who are naturally talented with women so successful.

One of those core concepts is the “A” in VAC: Attainability. Attainability is the measure of how readily a woman feels she’s able to get what she wants with you – if she thinks it’s in the bag with you and she’s got you hook, line, and sinker, your attainability is too high; that’s called being no challenge. Being no challenge is what happens when a guy makes it too easy for a girl, doesn’t challenge her, or comes across needy or low value.