Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 18, 2020, 6:29 pm

Not too bad, not too bad.

Some quick feedback:

1. It might feel like an answer that you prepare to feed women because you know they might like it. In these cases, I prefer going more direct. For example "of course. Who doesn't like sex? Sex is one of the things that make life worth living. however, I prefer sex when it's part of something deeper, of... " (and then you can go with your answer)
2. Typical shit test. I usually reply to that with a semi-disgusted face to show disappointment. I let the nonverbals do the talking. And if it's not enough, I may add "don't say that, why do you say that, what's that supposed to mean". The goal is to "shame them" into a more collaborative approach ("collaborative shaming")
3. This was your best effort in the 3, in my opinion. I might still go for a semi-refusal of her frame. Such as "(semi-annoyed face, shaking my head away for emphasis of me not liking that nonsense) I don't know what other men do, I only answer for myself, and I like honest people. Are you an honest person" (turn it back on her) "yes" "great, I appreciate that. So how would you feel if I told that you're a liar because "all women lie""

 

Quote from Zeph on September 18, 2020, 7:27 pm

Thanks Lucio!

What I take from this is that, on average, I should aim to be more direct, more contemptuous of her shit-testing? Make it known that I get what she's doing, and shame her for trying that with me?

I have to agree that I didn't really take into consideration the improvisation needed when conversing. Most of them indeed seem manufactured beforehand.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 19, 2020, 12:28 am

Well, that also depends on your style.

If you're more the joking type, then you might use more humor and a bit more game.

But I prefer this approach because you also take a judge role and it's higher power. If delivered well and if she backtracks, then she's accepting your frame and leadership, which does a lot of great things for you.

 

Quote from Zeph on September 19, 2020, 11:29 am

Ah, that's what your replies have in common. They aim to make her backtrack and accept your frame. And it also positions you as the judge in the relationship. I suppose that's why N.3. was the best out of them.

Sweet, thanks Lucio!

 

(If I am wrong, please let me know)

Quote from John Freeman on September 19, 2020, 3:25 pm

Thank you guys, this is useful for me as well.

I'm also thinking that a good mental framework to answer in these situations is to use the Jordan Peterson's "No". In this way it prevents to buy into her frame instead of thinking "it might be true", steps like this:

1. No
2. Why it is not true
3. Back to collaborative frame

Example: "No (prevents buying into her frame). I think this is a generalization, some men lie and some are honest (philospher frame). To me, the more honest you are in a relationship, the better it is (collaborative frame). Don't you think? (now she has to either buy into your frame)".

And then: (Lucio trademark): "I'm glad we agree" (on my collaborative and inclusive frame).

Quote from Zeph on September 19, 2020, 3:49 pm

The three step process could work great to some shit-tests. Simply by contradicting and outright refusing her frame your brain starts setting up replies based on what you believe is wrong.

Thanks for sharing!

Quote from John Freeman on September 19, 2020, 5:13 pm

Simply by contradicting and outright refusing her frame your brain starts setting up replies based on what you believe is wrong.

Yep, that's the idea. You got it.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 19, 2020, 5:27 pm

Quote from Zeph on September 19, 2020, 11:29 am

Ah, that's what your replies have in common. They aim to make her backtrack and accept your frame. And it also positions you as the judge in the relationship. I suppose that's why N.3. was the best out of them.

Sweet, thanks Lucio!

Yes, correct, rather than just "passing" the test, you turn it as an opportunity to become the leader, and to run the interaction as you like it.

Plus, the annoyed / disgusted face sends the message of "you're not acting good enough for me", typical judge role. If she backtracks, you're the one in power, and she is submitting to you, which might as well be the definition of a seduction.

By the way, for the nonverbal facial expression, it's similar to what McGregor does here:

https://youtu.be/muKzktfPwZ8?t=26s

Just the facial expression though, as he seems to say "fuck that stupid question", but not the words.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 19, 2020, 5:31 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 19, 2020, 3:25 pm

Thank you guys, this is useful for me as well.

I'm also thinking that a good mental framework to answer in these situations is to use the Jordan Peterson's "No". In this way it prevents to buy into her frame instead of thinking "it might be true", steps like this:

1. No
2. Why it is not true
3. Back to collaborative frame

Example: "No (prevents buying into her frame). I think this is a generalization, some men lie and some are honest (philospher frame). To me, the more honest you are in a relationship, the better it is (collaborative frame). Don't you think? (now she has to either buy into your frame)".

And then: (Lucio trademark): "I'm glad we agree" (on my collaborative and inclusive frame).

Great framework as well, love it!