Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Infographics: sharing, previews, & feedack
It definitely does look more professional.
I have only one observation if we want to be really nitpicky: why are the two bars delimiting the golden balance at 0 and 100? Shouldn't they be around 25% and 75%, for example, based on the observation that power is relative and you want to be slightly higher power, but not too much?
Thank you, Bel!
It's great feedback!
The concept is that from above 0, you're already into the positive -higher power-.
And above the 100% is where you might be getting into over-powering and win-lose -and accruing too much power instead of using it move forward, which is the ultimate goal of effective dating-.
Cool, I have a slightly different take:
Ideas:
- The line fits within the graph (rather than going above the 100) because it intuitively implies "you don't want to be 100% high-power or 100% low-power": which I think is easier for one to understand.
- "Friendliness" and its percentages are on the x-axis: to further illustrate that it's a power/warmth graph and underline where one might be falling on the SCM
- Kept consistency with "Disempowering": Rather than saying "Disempowered" because "Self-Disempowering" communicates the same message with perhaps less confusion.
- Changed "Golden Balance" to "High-Quality Sweet Spot": because as much as I like the idea of gold (especially since it complements the gold eagle of the website), "high-quality" will probably feel more familiar to students as they go through PU and internalize better as they learn more about aiming for the HP/HW sweet spot in order to be a "high-quality leader".
Feel free to disagree with my take and share any ideas.
P.S.:
We've talked about the background bars being confusing before, but I think it works here in this case. Would be open to reading anyone's thoughts on this.
Thank you, Ali!
This chart is supposed to represent a couple new brand new concepts from the dating power dynamics section of Seduction University:
- Golden balance: it's the area from 0 to 100 between the arrows.
It's between too low power that a woman is not interested because “you're less than her”, and too high power that a woman is not interested because she thinks you're "too much" (she self-rejects) or you're dominating her and she feels it's a competition that she's losing and that she'll get hurt with you - Straight-line seduction: it's a concept/mindset/approach borrowed from "straight line persuasion" and applied to dating.
It's the forward motion, the quickest path from meeting or romantic pursuit, to intimacy.
Straight-line seduction is all about efficient use of power, using it as fuel to move forward (vs "hoarding" power and staying put)
The "X" must be time, since the model is based on time forward and the idea that you either hoard power (go up), or you use it to move forward -move forward generally means "growing closer", can be either physically, towards sex, or romantically/intimacy/as a couple/as a "team"-.
This is what most guys miss out on (of course, most guys' goal would be to reach the zero, so they don't even think of the implications of "too high-power" without moving forward and/or without a win-win frame).
But it's important to know for those who are working on themselves -and for those who are learning game, since some coaches focus a lot on games to appear superior and non-interested, but not adding warmth and developing an "us" frame-.
Theoretically, moving forward means that you don't have the utmost power ever, simply because of the fact that you're interested -the utmost power ever would be if she likes you, sees you as "more than her", BUT you ignore her or insist on framing yourself as so much better, that she better forget that you two even have a chance. Obviously, that's not effective dating. Ridiculing her, over-gaming, or too much asshole game also ends up too high power and/or competitive-.
The line at zero is supposed to mean "she sees you as en equal" -not too bad, but not great for dating and seducing with the highest reliability either-.
Below that, she sees you as lower value/power than her -almost a death knell for dating and seducing-.
Above that, she sees you higher value/power than her.
But this is all great feedback, if it's not clear, it means I need to explain it.
Plus, I love the yellow bands ideas, I think I'll implement that from 0-20 and from 80-100.
Ah, got it, thank you for the clarification.
So, maybe something like this then:
The "poor dating strategist" keeps crossing over into one of the (red) danger zones which causes him to take longer to reach his end goal (if he ever reaches it).
The high-quality man, on the other hand, takes the fastest, straightest path by remaining in the sweet middle spot (the golden balance).
Notes:
- Since 0-100 is technically the golden balance, anything above 100 or below zero is a red danger zone. Still, the white spaces are "lighter danger zones" (from 0-20 and 80-100) because you mentioned you might want to highlight those spaces.
Still concerned I might be misunderstanding this concept. Let me know if you think so and I'll wait for further updates on this thread before coming back with more ideas.
P.S.:
No pressure to say "thank you" if a mockup I make isn't helpful, Lucio, I think I misunderstood your idea/concept in part because I haven't gone through SU yet.
Ali, this last one is awesome, thank you!
I hadn't even thought of highlighting the difference of the quickest path while being generally higher power, but without over-gaming (the guy who goes up and down).
That is perfect, also considering there is a real-life example of over-gaming and wasting time / putting the seduction at risk.
Will mention you in the credits (unless you tell me not to because of the nature of the content, up to you).
In any case, real added value here.
Made a new infographic for networking strategies (taken from the book and researches I've learned in the book Power):
However, this was easy, and it's here more for catching attention than anything else :).
The real tough nut to crack is this:
The "Honest/Cheat" Sliding Scale
I want to to put a new foundational concept into an infographic.
The concept is this:
- The easier you make it to take from you, the more people will take from you
Conversely, the more difficult you make it, the less you will "lose" to takers.
Such as, instead of thinking about cheating, disempowering behavior, predatory behavior, and generally value-taking behavior as black and white where people either take or give, it's more of a sliding scale.
When you're naive and too trusting, you make it too easy for others to take from you, they will flock to you like bees to honey, so you automatically end up with a lot of takers in your life.
That is a more mature, strategic, and effective way of looking at relationships and honesty/dishonesty in general.
It also changes the locus of control, from simply "finding" reliable people and hoping that whoever you meet is (mostly external locus of control), to take steps to make sure that people will behave more properly with you (mostly internal locus of control: it's up to you).
However...
How to put this into an infographic?
I thought about two ways:
Sliding Scale Concept
The sliding scale focuses more on you.
It ranges from super naive, to super power aware.
And an indicator/pointer on that scale shows that the more you move towards the naive end, the more people will take from you.
The higher up you go in power-awareness and skills, the less people take from you (and the more your relationships will be based on win-win, with more givers in your life).
Bell Curve Concept
The bell curve instead focuses more on others.
At the "honest tail end", the super honest people will never take from others, no matter how easy it is.
At the "crook tail end", the super crooks will always try to take from you, no matter what.
However, most people are in the middle -it's a bell curve-, and they can turn into takers or givers depending on the situation and, in large part, on you.
Combining The Two
Of course, ideally, the two will go together.
Together it will show that by covering your ass and being more strategic and aware, you protect against the vast majority that can swing either way.
It's a tough one to represent.
Happy to read any thoughts and ideas on this.
I think it's an awesome set of concepts, and that the two areas are inextricably linked and both necessary: it's important to develop both the capacity to spot takers and limit interactions with them on one side, and the capacity to make sure that people will behave more properly with you whatever their inner nature on the other side.
This is both because normal people may act like takers in specific circumstances with extremely naive people, and also because real takers do not simply use power moves to take advantage of people, but also manipulate and twist normal social rules (reciprocity, liking, authority) to their advantage, often by their simple inaction (for example, a dark triad may ask for something valuable with no intent to reciprocate whatsoever).
So there are certain things you can and should do and say with normal people, that you cannot and should not do with takers, and viceversa: which makes it indispensable to include in one's arsenal both of the above skills (the skill to spot takers and dark triads, and the skill to check and redress power moves and taking behavior).
Bel, this is awesome, awesome feedback, thank you so much.
While before I'd have gone with a slider first, now you convinced me to combine the two.
So I'm thinking of a bell curve on top of a slider:
Such as, the lower one is, the more people are takers for him.
But life would look very different if he can move that arrow upward.
And then maybe add some arrows from the takers to the naive person, since the dynamics are even worst for naive people because many takers actively seek the more naive ones.
Seems good; another idea could be a matrix like the power / warmth one, with “skill to spot takers” on one axis, and “skill to check power moves” on the other.
