Captain Jack – Opening, Social Proof versus “Player in the Game” and Game Dynamics

This is a great Captain Jack repost from his blog way back in the day, which went down a while back (meaning this article has been LONG LOST – until now).  I preserved it for a while for myself, but decided to bring it back here so people can experience it for themselves, and so I can assign it to some of my students.  It’s kind of a long post, however this is one badass piece of theory and tech.  If you can read and implement this you can add a pretty advanced element to your game that will help you start to elevate your success in field.  The Game Dynamics alone are something that, once understood, will totally bring you into the Matrix.

Captain Jack popped back on the scene recently.  You can find his blog here:

http://www.getabeautifulgirlfriend.com/

Captain Jack – Opening and Social Proof versus “Player in the Game” 

Since I’m going out to meet and seduce women more and actually working on SPs I’ve done a bit more experimentation and then, OUTSIDE THE FIELD, analysis of what I’ve noticed versus what I expected versus what I want.

I noticed the other day I was only marginally interesting to the hot bartenders and wait staff until I started talking to cougar and the milf.

Normally, I explain this as Social Proof. It’s one of the communities favorite theories. And, it seems to explain a lot. Cialdini popularized it and the definition is people will be more likely to do what they see other people doing.

What about in the case of a normal bootcamp when guys are opening, but getting blown out or failing to get attraction… they still get more AIs after opening than when they don’t open. And, in this case you’d expect them to get blown out so much the first few times that they’d be done for the night due to all the negative social proof. But, that doesn’t happen.

So, what’s going on?

Let’s examine this a bit further…

Have you ever looked at a woman and thought it looked “hard” to approach her and you weren’t sure if you wanted to risk it. Then, some chode went and opened her and she was extremely nice to him and everything went fine. Then, you said to yourself, “Holy shit… I could do better than that chode” and you walked over and opened?

Have you ever seen a hot girl with a chode and thought, “Damn… how the fuck did he get her? I’m 10x cooler than that guy” and if you had a smooth chance you’d have attempted to flirt?

Both of the above have happened to me and others many, many times. Here’s another related question:

Did you know that guys have been blown out after approaching women, gone back in later, and had it bust wide open?

What I’m going to say is that Social Proof doesn’t explain the warm responses you get from approaching women when you’ve been seen in set OR you merge sets with pawns…

I think it has to do with how she categorizes YOU in relation to the Game being played. She’s not keying off of the ACTUAL responses of the other women (that’d be pre-selection) as much as she’s keying off the realization that you are playing the Game.

See, women know that this is a Game. The Game is find an attractive mate to have sex with!

In any game there are Players and Spectators. If you are not talking to women, approaching women or already with women then you are a Spectator until proven otherwise. (She may HOPE that you are a Player and give you AIs to find out.)

Why do AIs increase when women see you open? Simply because they realize you are a Player and so are they so it’s an invitation from one Player to another Player to engage in the Game.

What about opening sets with a woman with you? First, it demonstrates you’re a Player in two ways, the opening and you are already with a girl. Second, much like you look at a dude and think you could do better than that guy, the girl looks at the girl and does the same… except girls seem to be much more aggressive in this area than the average community male. An Hb3 WILL try to unseat a 9 or 10… whereas most dudes who feel outclassed will shy away and ask if she has any friends or something.

You are most likely missing a lot of AIs. Assume any eye contact is an AI for the time being and you’ll get a lot of real world experience around the subject. Also, many afc/PUAs have trouble with making or keeping eye contact so practice holding eye contact if you haven’t done those types of drills. Especially if this is a weak point because it just won’t be tolerated in set. If this is a weak point for you literally stare girls down until you don’t feel any pressure to look away. A few days/nights of this is usually all you need.

You can make the assumption that if you see one AI you’ve probably missed 2 or 3.

Now, this snowballs. You open a set, girls notice, they start changing their body language and giving you AIs. They look in your direction more. Other girls pick up on this… you open more, new girls pick up on it plus the old girls. Snowball.

(If you’ve ever been in a club with a celebrity or sports star you’ll notice this on steroids magnified by one hundred. You can hardly keep a woman’s attention when there’s a big celeb in proximity.)

As you move around girls will shift body language towards you. You’ll get Proximity AIs from all girl sets, etc.

(In my eCoaching bootcamp I discuss Parading girls… it’s the fastest way to warm up the entire venue. I have a saying that if you can Parade 3 times in a night you will most likely get laid. It is magical.)

Can’t this be described by Pre-Selection?

Again, only partially. See, pre-selection means the women were visibly and intensely attracted to you and the other women noticed it. We have PLENTY of examples of guys who have a lot of hot female FRIENDS who couldn’t get laid if their life depended on it. What is going on here? Well, though they are surrounded by hot girls they never show new girls they meet that they are in the game. They never show her that they know her Goals and move her across the barriers/obstacles to the win.

Don’t get me wrong Pre-Selection DOES help. But, what I’m talking about is something even before and more basic. I’m talking about girls giving AIs and becoming warm just based on her/their analysis that you are playing the same Game they are. Pre-selection comes later… it is “He’s in the same Game AND he’s obviously good at it” (Parading, which I mentioned above, activates Pre-Selection especially when multiple girls are paraded together or close together in the same night.)

EVERYBODY in the game hates wasting time. Females don’t want an opportunistic Spectator to suck up their time so they usually reserve their AIs for proven Players. Girls also intuitively know that if she can get one guy to open her then a few others will get more courage and open. Thus, more Players and more opportunity for her to win.

What about Celebrities?

Let’s analyze this a bit… Why do women like Celebrities? I can think of a bunch of reasons.

1. Money? Money doesn’t hurt BUT, it can’t ONLY be money. Pro PUAs have many, many super rich guys come to us for help. Many super rich end up as sugar daddies for hotties and those situations aren’t usually exclusive.

2. Looks? Well, women don’t have the same physiological responses to looks as men do. Their acceptable range of looks is MUCH wider and is weak enough that we can totally ignore it. (Provided your grooming and style is good). Plus, many Celebrities are dog ugly.

3. Status? A strong contributor. Society has conditioned us to treat celebs better. Even dudes want to meet other celebrity dudes.

4. An Assumed Player in the Game. This conditioning of status begins the SNOWBALL we talked about earlier. When you get the multiple girls visibly interested, the society conditioning of treating celebs as special plus the idea of bragging rights and money, then you have a lot of factors working together. It is deduced, assumed, that they are prime Players in the Game… thus, the females play all out.

The Case of the Man with Social Proof but Not a Player in the Game.

Take a guy out with 3 women. One of them is his wife, the other two are her sexy girlfriends. He has a wedding band on. Does he get massive AIs? No. He might get a few at first… some women are screwy and like to try and others may not have noticed the ring but after about an hour or two in the venue he is essentially invisible to the other Players.

I noticed this when I was out with FBs/Girlfriends. I’d get a LOT of AIs at first and after a bit I was essentially invisible again. Sure I was with a hot girl (social proof idea) BUT it was pre-empted because the girls realized I wasn’t in the Game.

So, I put the idea of Social Proof on the backburner as something that, while valid, only partially described what was happening and opt instead for the fuller idea of Player in the Game. It better describes what actually occurs in the field. Spectators, Players, Winners, Obstacles and Goals.

This also helps to mesh Sexual Framing with some of the more standard MM structured approach. Though, I usually avoid the standard Peacocking, Pawning, Social Proof/DHV routines (ex. the routine where you show you with pics with hot girls, doing cool shit, hanging with cool people), with this idea they start to make sense together.

When I open and start Sexual Framing I’m demonstrating I’m a Player in the Game… that we are both playing the same Game, that I value her Game Goal (finding a guy who can make her feel sexy and sexual) and I’m willling to carry it home (so to speak! haa).

Since I’ve gotten good at opening one or two sets, hooking and staying in for the long haul the other girls notice it… if the set busts or unravels, many girls in the vicinity have noticed the deep sexual attraction between me and the other girl and have me pegged. Opening any girl who witnessed that makes my set go that much easier.

She isn’t looking for Value or Social Proof, she’s looking for the man in her near Vicinity who is the best Player in the Game.

If you understand this it will lessen your worry about people seeing a set go bad. It won’t matter, by opening you’ll show everyone else you’re in the game.

P.S. You should also feel less pressure from others watching you open because Spectators don’t count! And, Male Players are too busy playing to notice or care! In fact, if anything they’re probably thinking of allying with you to give both of you better chances to win.

Captain Jack: Game Dynamics and “Player in the Game” = Elegance

Quote
“Hmm I think this is boiling down to a bit of semantics and how you exactly define it. If I go to a bar with my hot female friends I get tons more AIs that if I go with my male buddies. Sure, if I don’t do anything about it then the AIs will die down over time (except for new girls entering the venue). But either way simply having hot girls with you gets you more interest than not, therefore scientifically proving that social proof is a contributory factor! It won’t get you laid (you’ll still have to open… duh!) but is sure as dandy helps!”

– comment by charliereay on “Opening and Social Proof Versus Player in the Game” post.

I am surprised I didn’t get more of these types of comments. When I published the post I expected to get a lot more of these types than the all out positive ones.

Let me start by saying this… I’m not saying Social Proof isn’t “right” or is “wrong.” What I’m saying is that it is INCOMPLETE. I’m pointing out that it leaves A LOT more unexplained than explained.

I discussed quite a few things that it left unexplained in the last post. There is a higher level dynamic at work when attracting, approaching and seducing women that better explains what is going on and that is the player in the game concept.

One GREAT way to know if you have found a better organizing principle is if you experience a surge in motivation to act or a desire to do things differently. Two or 3 commenters noted they felt more pumped to approach women. The reason is because when they adopted this idea it caused a spontaneous release of competing and inefficient ideas leaving more energy and attention available for action. And/or it stabilized a lot of floating thoughts thus lessening confusion (and confusion causes fear and apprehension.)

I’ll show you how it better explains common field phenomena and then I’ll show you how it ALSO explains Sexual Framing.

Social Proof

* Covered in previous post.

Peacocking

* Someone who is peacocking but not opening is a tool. Why? Socially we know, and women know, that Peacocking is something you do when you are Playing the Game. A dude who is Peacocked and not opening is socially weird. Likewise, people with low game awareness call scantily clad women in the club “sluts” not realizing this is what women do to invite the real Players to open. Saying that women open guys who are peacocked because they realize the men are Players in the Game is a leap… but, it is a very small leap. It might be better explained by saying that women can use it to show everyone THEY are playing the Game thus, getting her opened more without making it too obvious.

Pre-Selection

* I covered this a bit in the last post. Pre-Selection is a VERY valid and observable phenom. But, again this only applies to Players in the Game. When they realize you aren’t in the Game their awareness is no longer on you and all invitations and attention shift to find Players.

Jealousy Threads

* Again, you have to be a Player in the Game and have her attracted for a Jealousy Thread to exist. J-Threads are incredibly powerful. They are so powerful BECAUSE the Game has a limited time span (a Game Obstacle) and a limited number of Players (another Game Obstacle). Her desire to win compels her to focus more energy on a proven quantity as does her desire to IMPROVE against competition. (The competition is other females, not the males.) Add to that the fact that she WAS on her way to Winning and you’ve got a deep sense of loss and self-doubt creeping in. The idea that other females could be BETTER was theoretical, now it is all too real. She will do ALMOST anything to beat the competitor.

Disqualifiers

* There are two valid players. It looks like they are headed to winning… but, now one of them seems to be questioning whether or not the other is a Player… the chances of winning drop causing fear and increasing desire to get back in the Game.

DHVs

* I’m skeptical about the real use of DHVs EXCEPT when you are talking to a girl to whom that shit is important AND her logical mind is engaged. She can use that stuff to talk herself into liking you or giving you more time/chances.

Ok, “Player in the Game” refines those a bit without colliding and give us a better understanding.

We KNOW Mystery Method works AND it works very very well for what it is designed to do… Those items listed above are given as the reason MM works… But, what then explains the massive success of Sexual Framing which isn’t built on any of those?

Sexual Framing doesn’t use Jealousy-Threads, Pre-Selection, Demonstrations of Higher Value (DHVs), Merging, Pawning or Social Proof except as a consequence when a set unravels and you have to open a new one.

In fact, Sexual Framing VIOLATES many common MM principles.

Can the “Player in the Game” concept describe it? Yes! Wonderfully!

A Game is made up of Spectators, Players, Winners, Obstacles and Goals.

I’m not using Obstacles in the MM definition here. Although her friends COULD be Obstacles they aren’t by default. They are only Obstacles when they don’t KNOW that you and her friend have AGREED to play the game together.

Approaching, attracting and seducing women is often called The Game.

All Games are Based on Agreement.

Game Dynamic 1: You and her must agree you are both Players. Naturally, this is you making a smooth open, hooking the set and her entering communication with you. If you can’t get agreement on this you don’t have a Game.

Game Dynamic 2: You and her must agree you are both playing the same Game TOGETHER. By opening Sexual Frames you are telling her what Game you are playing. As she continues talking with you and playing along she is AGREEING that this is a male-female conversation with a sexual dynamic. If you can’t get agreement on this you don’t have a Game.

Game Dynamic 3: You must show her that you VALUE her Game Goal. By being non-judgmental and telling her you LOVE how sexy she is, etc you are showing her this. If you can’t get agreement on this you don’t have a Game.

Game Dynamic 4: You must demonstrate that you can carry her through the Obstacles… first by handling them in her mind, then in the immediate environment then over time. This can be done explicitly by getting the group to like you… getting her so into you that she does it and/or using an Inoculation Routine like I mentioned in “FR: College Girls!” Then, by baby-stepping her along ever so gently she’ll know/feel that she is having all the good feelings and none of the bad (like she usually does), she gets even more comfortable and puts more trust in you. If you can’t get agreement on this you don’t have a Game.

Also, you can look for her to show you the same! For example, when I ask her “You’re not the jealous type… are you?” and then tell a story about how I was “hanging out” (code for fucking) a girl and she got jealous and I didn’t approve I’m beginning to define what Game we are playing and putting in question her agreement on Dynamic 2. She has to alleviate my concerns by agreeing with me that jealousy sucks.

The Most Evil of All Evils

What about LMR? Can this even shed some light on LMR?

Yes!

LMR is primarily an unclear agreement about whether or not you are both playing the same Game (unclear Game Dynamic 2). It can also be that you haven’t shown her that you value her Game Goal (unclear on Game Dynamic 3).

If she is playing “Potential GF Game” and you are playing ONS game and she THINKS you are playing “Potential GF Game” but isn’t exactly sure due to mixed communication signals then… BAM! LMR. You’d have to have told her that your game works like this “Primarily Sexual and then possible grow into GF over time” in order to avoid it.

On the flipside, If you WERE playing to get a GF and she was CONVINCED you were…

…and she WAS playing that Game too…

…and she believed that giving it up wouldn’t destroy that Game (clear on Game Dynamic 3), then…

…she’d have no issue having sex with you the first night.

This is why so many of the PUAs trained in “social” forms of Pick-up have such a hard time getting laid.

They broadcast “social, fun guy — potential fun bf” on Game Dynamic 2 and then wonder why it takes forever to lay her… furthermore, they never make it clear that they VALUE sexuality so she has to be double certain it won’t fuck up that Game before having sex. They have methodically built tons of agreement on a DIFFERENT GAME (fun, cool, social bf) and wonder why the Game Goal of a DIFFERENT GAME isn’t happening.

Those Silly PUAs.

Captain Jack

P.S. Knowing what you know now about The Game Dynamics you should be able to pinpoint on WHICH Dynamic any busted set failed on. All “no-gos” are failure on Game Dynamic 1. All sets that unravel come from failures on Game Dynamic 4, etc. What would you do with said information? Why you’d examine your Game Plan and look for deficiencies in your common routines/stacks/ideas/beliefs in that area, shore it up, set up experiments/solutions and get your ass back in the Field!

P.P.S. Disqualifiers work because they threaten agreement on Game Dynamic 1. See that? If there isn’t agreement on all the Game Dynamics, there is NO GAME, thus no chance of winning. Jealousy Thread threatens Game Dynamic 2.

That’s it for now.  If you got something you wanna say, feel free to comment down below.

Until next time…  “If it ain’t wet, spit on it!”

Advertisements