Tag: Rapport

Occupational Hazards

So What Do You Do?

What-do-you-do

Question came up on the forum.

I think new players typically treat this question as a “Test”.  Tests require clever answers.

A Square, a guy not even aware of the game, just says, “I’m a credit analyst at a bank” “I’m a mechanic” and they look to the girl for reaction, ideally approval.

If it’s something the girl understands what he does, and she’s feeling him, “Ooh great, I always need a good mechanic”

^Now before we get really deep into this topic, let’s just break apart this seemingly innocuous statement.

On one level, she’s excited and giving the guy validation.  On another level, she’s the one who’s giving validation.  And on yet another level, some girls see the guys they meet as tools for their own ends.  She finds out what you do, and she already has a role for you to fill in her life.

Unconsciously (?), she’s already trying to use you.

I wonder if you said porn star what her reaction might be? lulz

Back to the new players. The young players typically don’t answer the question like a square.   They have been made aware that women judge how you respond to this question.

Where new players typically falter, is that they focus on the literal communication, but not the sub-communication.  Guys that get it focus on the sub-communication.

newbs – answer “smart ass”

journey men – answer smart

vets consider the context, the specific interaction, the timing, her tone, whether he’s passed certain goal posts, and he understands her subcommunication.  Hostile or Pleasant, he then takes what she wants to know and uses it to his advantage.

So here’s how I handle it

I working in a high prestige/high income field, but my actual work is low prestige/middle income.   Technically the janitor @ Google works in Tech.

So when girls ask me this question, I haven’t personally made peace with what I do all day. (In fact, I spend a lot of my days plotting my way out, as well as doing what I truly love – and that’s writing)

Because it causes me pain to deal with this, that angst/anxiety telegraphs itself.  So at first I was doing a lot of the above.

– one liners
– flippant answers
– never being serious
– changing the subject
– flipping it around and accusing her of something
– being very honest
– answering a different question than she asked (the politician)

Sometimes this was fine, sometimes it was fatal.

But my game has grown since those days.  Even if my job has not gotten much better.

For 1, I recognize the setting and when during the approach the question comes.   If she’s coming at me hostile or friendly or if she’s just passing the time – I see this question as an opportunity to get closer to getting in to her pants.

Pretty much any of the common shit tests should be seen as OPPORTUNITIES.  It’s like you exactly know what’s going to be on the final exam, why wouldn’t you have a A+ answer?

Second, having done this for a while, I recognize that girls have an insatiable need for novelty.  They need “new feels” all the fucking time.  Girls get jaded quickly.  And guys respond with the same basic ways all the time.

You might “pass” the test by being clever or switching the frame…but I want to blow her mind.

More often than not, I like taking innocent questions and just drawing her deeper into my web.  When a chick is hostile or indifferent, this overarching strategy of taking her lame tests and bringing her into a new space works to the point that she looks at me different.

Third, If I give her the truth directly, indirectly, it might change the way she feels about me.  If I don’t give her the truth now, eventually she’ll come back to it.   Your work is not something that’s easy to be vague about.  If you have anything with this chick, just time wise and attention wise work is going to come up.  She doesn’t need to know the details though.

So how I used to do it.

*night game, girl is open, seems positive*
WIA – “The bread pudding is magnifique!” (in a french accent cause I think it’s funny)

Chica – “So what do you do?”

WIA – “Banker, but they cover the bread pudding with this brown sugar and bourbon sauce, and it’s like big as the whole plate.  It gets all over your fingers, and your lips.  Son…you gotta go to this spot…”

The key is that I don’t dwell on it, but I continue with my passion.

And this was okay.   I could have a high prestige job, a chick would remark to herself that I was humble about it, and didn’t lead with it.   That’s what most guys do.  They lead with their big job, big car, big house.  When i’ve had those things I tried that shit too. (this was despite knowing game) And all that ever did was put me in the provider category.   LTR or FB, you have to fuck her fast.  Provider category is the slow train.

I’d spend a few seconds redirecting the conversation to something sensual. (because i want to move the ball closer to sex)

I kept getting this question, and it kept sticking.

So I went back to the essence.

Game is all about what’s not being spoken, but what is being said.
And
I’m trying to bang her body, but I need her mind first.

What is she sub-communicating to me?
What can I sub-communicate back to her to move the ball forward.

So now, I improvise the words everytime, but my structure is this,  at most this whole thing takes a minute.

“So what do you do”

WIA – I like smart/perceptive girls.

(you can ask her if she’s smart? or you can just make the statement)

(smart works for dumb chicks – they want to feel smart, perceptive is better for smart ones – they like to touch other stuff, and dumb girls might not know perceptive, lol)

WIA – I’ll give you some clues

*puts one hand up*

*she should put a hand up*

WIA – “Feel my hands, are they soft or rough”

– give her a command
– get *her* to initiate and break the touch barrier
– give her an easy question to answer
– opportunity to comment on her soft hands, “someone here never does dishes*

WIA *move her hands to the bicep* “Big or small”
– if she says big, I tell her that she’s not perceptive (tease)
– if she says small, I tell her that she’s trying to hurt my feelings and needs to make it up to me later (projecting a future with her and me in it)

WIA – *move hand to the fro* (might be hard to adapt for you straight haired guys) – Either I’m really good at my job so I can look like this, or my job doesn’t really matter that much and they just need a warm body

WIA- Now you’ve heard me talk.  I’m pretty shy.  What do you think I do?
I have faith in you, i think you’ll figure it out.

———-  Well you get the picture.

-Archie

Cop seeks rapport with Suspect

As far as I’m concerned.  Game technology really hasn’t advanced since the late Aughties.   New technology has changed the scene a bit.  Back in the day, there was not swipe right or swipe left.  So maybe I’m not 100% correct…

But in terms of the game that matter, not more efficient scheduling, not a whole lot has changed.

  1. See A Girl
  2. Walk Over There
  3. Get her attention
  4. Keep talking until she reacts
  5. Use her reaction as fuel to really start the interaction going.

There is some stuff at the edges that you should do to make things easy, but the basic premise is that you want to light a fire under a girl and turn it into a blaze…for you.

So the game that I concern myself with is the stuff that gets her emotions going.  The working theory that I’ve cobbled together from comparing my experiences to those of others is essentially that real game is sub-communicating.   The mere fact that you can sub-communicate is attractive.  And send the right signals…

Well you know the rest.

So to that end, I’ve been looking for deeper forms of sub-communication in game, but also outside of game.

Enter Interrogation.

http://www.wired.com/2016/05/how-to-interrogate-suspects/?mbid=social_fb

A novel interrogation technique borrowed from the war on terror..

Here’s the key phrase

But the central finding running through much of HIG’s research is this: If you want accurate information, be as non-accusatorial as possible—the HIG term is “rapport-building.” This may sound like coddling, but it’s a means to an end. The more suspects say, the more that can be checked against the record. The whole posture of the interrogation—or interview, as the HIG prefers to call it—is geared not toward the extraction of a confession but toward the pursuit of information.

Rapport Building.

Now i’ve you been in the game a minute, Rapport is something that happens when a girl realizes that she can share anything.  Rapport is typically achieved when she opens and the conversation goes from you talking 90% of the time and her giving one word answers, to a nice back and forth.

Wide Rapport is talking freely about a lot of topics.

Deep rapport is talking in depth, typically about personal topics.

So the cops have figured out that you can get a whole lot of information out of suspects by creating rapport.   Who said cops had game?

For we who pursue the playerly arts, this is not news.

But let’s break down stuff in the article that stands out.

intense stare

Intense stare?  Already stacking the deck here Wired.

married to a woman

One should raise an eyebrow here.  It’s 2016, shouldn’t his past be his past? lol.  It’s interesting when the mainstream media bucks the mainstream media trends.  (You know I gotta throw a bone to my Red Pill fans.)

Now we get to some interesting stuff.  Criminal Interrogation and Confessions by Fred Inbau and John Reid.

If you’ve watched a cop/lawyer show in the past 5 decades, this is the stuff where they got the perp in the interrogation room, and they basically badger him, lie to him, and break him down psychologically in order to eke out a confession.   The way the cop shows play this out is that they keep pulling out evidence until the perp decides to come clean.

In the real world, it’s more like the scene from Menace II Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gbKPdttusQ

“You know you done fucked up”..

They keep having them repeat the story over and over again, until they misremember something, or one detail isn’t exact.

I hate this sort of thing.  And if you live in a free country, you should too.  This is psychological abuse.

But there’s game here.  The cops believe that they are so right, that they have free license to press their versions of reality on the suspect.

  • the claustro­phobic room
  • the interrogators’ outward projection of cer­tainty
  • the insistence on a theory of the case that assumes the suspect’s guilt

Another juicy quote, “The manual gave rise to a new archetype: the silver-tongued interrogator-someone who, through intimidation and seduction can get anyone to admit to anything.

But you and I both know that browbeating can get you into “romance”.    Indeed, this sort of thing, where you judge yourself to be right can have you at the wrong end of a set of furry handcuffs.

Here’s another good piece.

end up believing

Ignore the lies, but focus on “end up believing they did it”

Okay, hmm. Interested?  Me too.  Not for nefarious reasons of course.  But I see pieces of these techniques in how they motivate people at my undisclosed corporate job.

But can only cops do this?

Of course not.

A researcher learned how to do it, and here’s what she found.

Shaw tells me she designed her study to mimic the techniques used in some false-confession cases. “I’m essentially marrying poor interrogation tactics with poor therapeutic tactics,” she says. The results were so strong, in fact, that she stopped administering the experiment before she had run through her full sample.

Hmmm, therapeutic tactics?  Now she’s really piquing my interest.   Not so much that she did that, but there is even such a thing as therapeutic tactics.  This begs further inquiry on my part.

On liars

A Severed Head, Two Cops, and the Radical Future of Interrogation | WIRED

Truth tellers ultimately will be able to give you far more detail that you can go and check,” says Steven Kleinman, a veteran military interrogator who has worked with the HIG. “No matter how good the cover story is, it’s not going to be as rich as a real-life story.” Liars, in other words, have to work much harder to invent and keep track of details. One way researchers have found to bring this strain and effort to the surface is to ask witnesses to tell their stories in reverse chronological order: Liars have a much harder time with it.

So here’s the secret sauce, something that we’ve been doing for a while.  A player is not judgmental.

When the conversation turned to the murder, they stayed chatty and nonconfronta­tional for as long as possible.

And do players just wing it?  Of course not.

They learned, for instance, that the kind of advance preparation and strategy that Stearns had put into the Lazarus case, and his unusual efforts to keep the conversation noncombative, have been shown to be effective.

So when they approach the suspect again, the detectives used another player trick, they kept the environment safe.

Suitcases and maps and papers were strewn about the hotel suite. But there were no tape recorders in sight, no pads with questions.

They go on to say that they almost never interruprted Campos-Martinez, and they avoided themings.  Sounds a bit like “Don’t scare the cat”   This is actually a bit difference than how you run high octane night game.  You want the young lady to talk about her romantic episodes, almost to get her to relive them.

The article goes on to say how they made sure that the suspect never felt like he was in a bind.  No walls.

So now my wheels are spinning.  Clearly some of this stuff is useful for rapport.  But the more dark triad stuff, where the cops are basically pushing someone to accept their version of the truth, their frame (as opposed to letting them come to it, or discover it) – makes me wonder if there are things in both techniques that could be used for love not war.

-WIA