I want to pick back up with my Re-Visiting Pick-up dogma series. Last time we looked at being non-reactive and focused on the idea that having the RIGHT reaction is better than sitting there with no reaction.
Today I want to talk about that prickly Pick-up pear (try saying that 3 times fast) known as Demonstrating value.
The idea as taught back in the day by guys like Mystery went a little something like this:
You are a 5(no matter what you look like) and she is a 10(no matter what she thinks she is/the environment etc) so in order to get her interested, you need to simultaneously lower her value while raising your own.
This was done through the use of two tools: Negs and Demonstrations of value (DHV). Now I'm going to to be tackling Negs in their own separate post, so here we'll be focusing on the DHVs.
Back in the day the DHVs that were commonly taught were:
1. Pre-selection. The idea that demonstrating or verbalizing the idea that other women are attracted to you causes attraction. Verdict: True. Probably the best thing I got from Mystery (and it flies in the face of a lot of typical dating advice) is the idea that dropping a hot ex GF into conversation causes attraction and it does, though not as well as actual demonstration.
2. Leader of Men. The idea that being the leader of your group was inherently attractive. Also one of the lamest things you could possibly say to a woman " I'm a leader of men." Verdict: True in theory. It's a good piece of head nodding material as power is attractive. However it's hard to actually demonstrate this without seeming like you are OBVIOUSLY trying to impress the girl.
3. Protector of Loved Ones. Verdict: False. This is WAY more of a comfort thing. It's also one of those things that is difficult to use in field. It's not something you're going to just casually throw into the first few minutes without seemingly like you are qualifying yourself.
So there's no inherent problem with those other than them being kinda head nodding material, and being difficult to implement unless you naturally have good conversational skills and social intelligence which most students don't.
Now we need to move on to what the REAL problem with the whole DHV model really is; value is subjective. While there are things that are universally attractive to women, they also happen to be the things that most guys who find this stuff don't have going for them. These are things like money, looks, height, social status, etc... Outside of those things value is a subjective thing. What is valuable to a party girl at a club in LA is different from what is valuable to a professional girl out to dinner with her girlfriend at a trendy lounge in Seattle. Older women value certain things that younger women don't, and vice versa.
So the real challenge and skill of attraction is being able to figure out on the fly what this particular girl in front of you is going to value and then trying to demonstrate that. This also ties back into the whole idea that being non-reactive is bad because instead of being non-reactive we want to tailor our interaction to the girl we're talking to.
Which is why DHV routines are so hit or miss for students. Sometimes they work but other times they fall flat because you're using them at the wrong time with the wrong girl.
SO the key points to take from this article are:
There is no "value formula" that works every time. Instead value is subjective and is mostly based on the individual girl in front of you.
Therefore the MOST important part of attraction is being able to figure out WHAT the girl in front of you values and using that rather than a paint by numbers approach.
Hope that helps,
JS-The King Of Content