ForumResources: Researches, Studies, TheoriesAtomic Attraction 2017 Christophe …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Atomic Attraction 2017 Christopher Canwell

#1 · October 22, 2020, 5:35 am

Ciao Lucio,

Have you heard about this book? You can read the first chapter and the table of contents here.

https://www.developattraction.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Atomic-Attraction.pdf

One reviewer says: 'Come my 30's, I stumbled upon Corey Wayne. His material brought my seductive abilities to heights I'd never seen. Then Bruce Bryan's work improved them further. Then Doc Love's. Now Christopher Canwell's work rests on my library's shelf alongside these other great works of explanation and instruction.'

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R18D9AOJNJDBRB/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B078N43RL3

Maybe you'll want to review this book.

Stef has reacted to this post.

#2 · October 22, 2020, 8:45 am

well from what I read in that sample it starts with pretty solid advice!

One of the best online resources for seduction and socialization appart from HERE, in my opinion is Girls Chase by Chase Amante.

#3 · December 1, 2020, 10:07 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 1, 2020, 10:07 pm
I read the sample, pretty good stuff.

My favorite part that answers one of the most common causes of cheating among women is when Canwell says:

Canwell: "Every decision a woman makes concerning attraction comes back to one crucial point: can you, as a man, provide her with strong, healthy children? If the answer is yes, her child is more likely to grow up to be healthy, strong, and capable of reproduction, ensuring the longevity of the woman’s genes well into the future. Every time a woman considers going on a date, having sex, and getting into a relationship, she is assessing, at a subconscious level, the strength of her date’s DNA and his ability to create strong, healthy offspring. Still, there are times when women choose to date and marry men they don’t find attractive. In this case, the woman opts to settle down with a beta male who’s caring, nurturing, beta qualities make for an excellent provider. But are these women sexually attracted to their beta partners? The answer, of course, is a resounding no. The woman has simply chosen to settle down with a beta
male as she seeks out stronger more confident men for sex and reproduction. This relationship dynamic provides women with the best of both worlds—a provider husband and the strongest possible DNA for her offspring."

I also took a peek at his YouTube channel, which has some good content but is lacking in terms of advanced material which sometimes causes the accidental spread of misinformation. For example, he recommends you always opt for the "agree and amplify" to deal with conflict and angry women:

(Isabel discovers a text message on her boyfriend Steve's phone. It's a text from Steve's ex-girlfriend, Candace.)

(Steve returns home)

Isabel: (screaming angrily) You forgot your phone!

Steve: What's wrong?

Isabel: Who's Candace?

(Isabel throws Steve's phone across the room)

Steve: (responding calmly and level-headed) What are you talking about? Candace my ex? It's probably an old message or something.

Isabel: (fuming angrily, she contradicts his frame) Bullshit. You're lying. You're just trying to cover up the fact that you still have feelings for her.

Steve: (maintains his calm demeanor, almost as if being patient with Isabel) Where do you think I was just now? With Candace?

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees while smiling) Yeah, I could be.

There seems to only be an "agree" here instead of an "agree and amplify". An agree and amplify in this case may have looked like:

Steve: (maintains his calm demeanor) Where do you think I was just now? With Candace?

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees and amplifies while smiling) Yeah, I could be. And, I might be getting back with her too.

There, we see it was amplified into a possible joke or covert threat. In the actual argument, we saw the "agree", but it wasn't really amplified into anything.

The rest of the argument in the video shows that this might have actually been more of an "agree and redirect":

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees while smiling) Yeah, I could be. (redirects) You hungry?

The argument continues:

(Steve walks into the kitchen in search of food.)

Isabel: (shouting) You're an asshole!

(Steve rubs his stomach hungrily while rummaging through the fridge)

Steve: (frame ignoring) We don't have any food. Do you want to go out and get takeaway?

Isabel: (sighing tiredly) I'll take care of it.

(Isabel steps into the kitchen and wraps her arms around Steve)

Isabel: Oh, I'm sorry. I just get so jealous sometimes. Forgive me?

Steve: Only if you buy me dinner.

I really don't know what to make of this argument. The ending resolution depends on the type of girl you're with. Isabel could just as easily have continued to yell, shout, and scream in search of answers (especially considering she never learned the details regarding the text messages to his ex).

This relationship style Canwell recommends seems to rely on being more care-free, to signal to your partner that you have other options than them, hence why you're so emotionally detached from the situation and calm. It's meant to show your partner that your high-value to where you can walk out, meet, and seduce plenty of other women so there's no reason for you to care about an argument with only one.

However, this style is probably not good for the health of the relationship long-term. Had Steve assertively drawn his boundaries to communicate that he expects more respectful communication, not only would Steve have gotten more feedback from his relationship partner on whether or not she respect his boundaries, but he would have also achieved the same results as the care-free attitude:

Care-free = (I'm high-value because I have other people in my life, so I'll refuse to engage in an argument like this with you)

Assertive = (I'm high-value because I expect respectful communication and fair treatment, so if you can't respect my boundaries, I'll spend time with other people who do)

We also must remember the problem with remaining calm in heated arguments like this:

Lucio: Sometimes women will inject lots of emotions in their arguments. And the problem with remaining calm in the face of emotional outbursts is that the attacker gets more and more aggressive, the attack gains the momentum, and it becomes a never-ending onslaught.

So, in that case, Steve also could have dealt with her "fire alarm frames" how Lucio recommends and avoided the chance that Isabel continued her aggressive behavior.

Next, we move on to his detailed explanation of using the "agree and amplify" frame control technique and what he recommends you do:

Her: (threatens to leave)

You: (agree and amplifies) Good. No more headaches.

Just as Lucio explained, you're losing power with the "agree and amplify" because you're quite literally following her lead whenever you use it.

Her: (calls you a liar)

You: I've been called worse.

I also wouldn't really call this an agree and amplify. It's more along the lines of the framing buffet technique.

It ignores the aggressive packaging of her statement while addressing the content of what she says as if it were a normal comment. The only thing that would have made the use of this technique better here is removing the word "I". She is accusing you of being a liar here, which means that if you want to keep the (negative) accusatory frame with her, you should avoid using first-person pronouns such as "I" so you can avoid taking ownership of the issue.

Her: (calls you an asshole)

You: I'll take it as a compliment.

Once again, you're accepting the frame that "you're an asshole", but you're not amplifying it into anything.

So, Chris Canwell, the author of Atomic Attraction does have some really good info. However, if you want to know the advanced stuff so you don't make as many relationship and dating mistakes, I'd still start with Power University because Canwell does have a habit of mixing up his information :).

I read the sample, pretty good stuff.

My favorite part that answers one of the most common causes of cheating among women is when Canwell says:

Canwell: "Every decision a woman makes concerning attraction comes back to one crucial point: can you, as a man, provide her with strong, healthy children? If the answer is yes, her child is more likely to grow up to be healthy, strong, and capable of reproduction, ensuring the longevity of the woman’s genes well into the future. Every time a woman considers going on a date, having sex, and getting into a relationship, she is assessing, at a subconscious level, the strength of her date’s DNA and his ability to create strong, healthy offspring. Still, there are times when women choose to date and marry men they don’t find attractive. In this case, the woman opts to settle down with a beta male who’s caring, nurturing, beta qualities make for an excellent provider. But are these women sexually attracted to their beta partners? The answer, of course, is a resounding no. The woman has simply chosen to settle down with a beta
male as she seeks out stronger more confident men for sex and reproduction. This relationship dynamic provides women with the best of both worlds—a provider husband and the strongest possible DNA for her offspring."

I also took a peek at his YouTube channel, which has some good content but is lacking in terms of advanced material which sometimes causes the accidental spread of misinformation. For example, he recommends you always opt for the "agree and amplify" to deal with conflict and angry women:

(Isabel discovers a text message on her boyfriend Steve's phone. It's a text from Steve's ex-girlfriend, Candace.)

(Steve returns home)

Isabel: (screaming angrily) You forgot your phone!

Steve: What's wrong?

Isabel: Who's Candace?

(Isabel throws Steve's phone across the room)

Steve: (responding calmly and level-headed) What are you talking about? Candace my ex? It's probably an old message or something.

Isabel: (fuming angrily, she contradicts his frame) Bullshit. You're lying. You're just trying to cover up the fact that you still have feelings for her.

Steve: (maintains his calm demeanor, almost as if being patient with Isabel) Where do you think I was just now? With Candace?

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees while smiling) Yeah, I could be.

There seems to only be an "agree" here instead of an "agree and amplify". An agree and amplify in this case may have looked like:

Steve: (maintains his calm demeanor) Where do you think I was just now? With Candace?

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees and amplifies while smiling) Yeah, I could be. And, I might be getting back with her too.

There, we see it was amplified into a possible joke or covert threat. In the actual argument, we saw the "agree", but it wasn't really amplified into anything.

The rest of the argument in the video shows that this might have actually been more of an "agree and redirect":

Isabel: (remaining defiant) You could be.

Steve: (agrees while smiling) Yeah, I could be. (redirects) You hungry?

The argument continues:

(Steve walks into the kitchen in search of food.)

Isabel: (shouting) You're an asshole!

(Steve rubs his stomach hungrily while rummaging through the fridge)

Steve: (frame ignoring) We don't have any food. Do you want to go out and get takeaway?

Isabel: (sighing tiredly) I'll take care of it.

(Isabel steps into the kitchen and wraps her arms around Steve)

Isabel: Oh, I'm sorry. I just get so jealous sometimes. Forgive me?

Steve: Only if you buy me dinner.

I really don't know what to make of this argument. The ending resolution depends on the type of girl you're with. Isabel could just as easily have continued to yell, shout, and scream in search of answers (especially considering she never learned the details regarding the text messages to his ex).

This relationship style Canwell recommends seems to rely on being more care-free, to signal to your partner that you have other options than them, hence why you're so emotionally detached from the situation and calm. It's meant to show your partner that your high-value to where you can walk out, meet, and seduce plenty of other women so there's no reason for you to care about an argument with only one.

However, this style is probably not good for the health of the relationship long-term. Had Steve assertively drawn his boundaries to communicate that he expects more respectful communication, not only would Steve have gotten more feedback from his relationship partner on whether or not she respect his boundaries, but he would have also achieved the same results as the care-free attitude:

Care-free = (I'm high-value because I have other people in my life, so I'll refuse to engage in an argument like this with you)

Assertive = (I'm high-value because I expect respectful communication and fair treatment, so if you can't respect my boundaries, I'll spend time with other people who do)

We also must remember the problem with remaining calm in heated arguments like this:

Lucio: Sometimes women will inject lots of emotions in their arguments. And the problem with remaining calm in the face of emotional outbursts is that the attacker gets more and more aggressive, the attack gains the momentum, and it becomes a never-ending onslaught.

So, in that case, Steve also could have dealt with her "fire alarm frames" how Lucio recommends and avoided the chance that Isabel continued her aggressive behavior.

Next, we move on to his detailed explanation of using the "agree and amplify" frame control technique and what he recommends you do:

Her: (threatens to leave)

You: (agree and amplifies) Good. No more headaches.

Just as Lucio explained, you're losing power with the "agree and amplify" because you're quite literally following her lead whenever you use it.

Her: (calls you a liar)

You: I've been called worse.

I also wouldn't really call this an agree and amplify. It's more along the lines of the framing buffet technique.

It ignores the aggressive packaging of her statement while addressing the content of what she says as if it were a normal comment. The only thing that would have made the use of this technique better here is removing the word "I". She is accusing you of being a liar here, which means that if you want to keep the (negative) accusatory frame with her, you should avoid using first-person pronouns such as "I" so you can avoid taking ownership of the issue.

Her: (calls you an asshole)

You: I'll take it as a compliment.

Once again, you're accepting the frame that "you're an asshole", but you're not amplifying it into anything.

So, Chris Canwell, the author of Atomic Attraction does have some really good info. However, if you want to know the advanced stuff so you don't make as many relationship and dating mistakes, I'd still start with Power University because Canwell does have a habit of mixing up his information :).

Lucio Buffalmano and Transitioned have reacted to this post.

#4 · February 14, 2021, 9:22 pm

Well, I finally reviewed it:

Atomic Attraction: the review

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback

#5 · February 14, 2021, 9:44 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 1, 2020, 10:07 pm

(...)

Some great stuff in this analysis, well done Ali.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback