Red Pill TheoryCharisma: Forget you exist in any interaction (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by bullmooseman

A big theme of the red pill sidebar is too realize nothing matters. What I've found, is that to do this, and become charming to others, is too forget you exist. People are so wrapped up in themselves, that they don't really care what you do if you don't care what you do. Any social interaction you engage in is improved by forgetting you exist, because the other party lives in their own head. Once you can forget you exist, you're not wrapped up in your own head: your own ego, and people find this charming. You become untouchable without an ego, and they scramble to keep up with you. You maintain frame and end up saying what's on your mind without any hesitation, all the while completely focusing on what they have to say and flattering them with your focus. Once you lose the ego and stop living in your head, the lesser individual you're interacting with has to scramble to keep up with you, and they find you charming.

Facebook memes love to champion the introvert, but the introvert is only selfish and self absorbed: he/she is not introverted. Be successful by not living in your own head.

[–]TheLaughingRhino 139 points139 points [recovered]

During any one conversation you should aim to follow the 70/20/10 rule:

Listen 70% of the time.

Ask questions 20% of the time.

Offer small input 10% of the time.

I think this strategy can be pretty effective, but with some context. Once you've hit upon a topic where the person is interested/has some skill, then I think you can shift to this ratio.

Here's a tricky thing I've learned with conversation/interpersonal skill sets, part of the art of being a good conversationalist/active listener is to learn how to lead the conversation in a direction. Either to something you want to talk about, or something where they feel super comfortable. I have found when I have taken the subtle lead in the direction of the conversation, the quality tends to be better ( i.e. I can control the pace, the tone, the amount of humor, the amount of depth, etc)

As for folks who struggle to be more "genuine" in terms of conversation, my trick is to find something the person actually knows about ( i.e. their career or skill) and ask about it in terms of learning something new. I actually do not like most people, most people make me weary. I do LOVE to learn. I mean I love love love to learn something new. And if someone can filter down a subject to it's base points, that only makes learning easier. Plus, as a side bonus, you now have new information under which to talk about to other people later about. ( I.E. you will learn something about coin collecting or how to fix cars or some subject and it will come up later, and you have something to share with that person, or add to the conversation)

I find most people lack the skill set to hold up a 70 percent ratio with a skilled conversationalist on their own.

A good strategy to learn is to have a group conversation, where you default into the "moderator" You are asking questions of 2-3 people around you, seeking comments, giving light compliments, focusing the framework of having everyone feel connected and a part of the conversation. It is NOT EASY to informally moderate a group conversation. Most people will talk in pairs or in a pair and leave someone out.

Never talk about yourself more than is needed to give context for the other person to reveal something to you. This might roll into the "breadcrumbs" theory that Rollo Tomasi has, where the information you do occasionally give out seems like a gift of gold because they understand you don't talk much about yourself.

If ever questioned about your vagueness about yourself, simply say you wanted to focus on learning bout the other person. The other thing to say is "You seemed pretty passionate about subject X, and I was interested, so I wanted to keep learning about it"

My take is never make the learning part a secret. Esp if the person is older than you, or there is a rank issue involved in terms of hierarchy. Saying you want to learn and expressing it is a positive for you. It puts people in a teaching position, which is disarming in it's own way ( i.e. similar to asking someone for advice, that is a flattering act in itself)

If you are dealing with a woman, always end the conversation if possible by pointing out how unique she is to other women around you. I.E. "You know, most women I've met, and I've traveled all over, would not make that observation, I'm actually impressed here"

If you are dealing with a man, always shake his hand ( by extending your hand first, you almost obligating him to do the same, framing the positive nature of the conversation, even if he didn't feel that way at some point) and say you appreciate that he offered a teaching moment for you and "whenever you talk, you always learn something new from the person"

One of the easiest ways to generate comfort with someone is to push the conversation into their arena, where they have knowledge or skill ( or think they do) and you make it clear you simply are not well versed in that area ( i.e. you cannot challenge them)

A good trick I've learned is if you are going to converse with this person regularly, to make a mental note of something they brought up that you did find interesting, look it up, Google it, Wiki it, and bring it up next time.

"Last time we talked, you mentioned some quote by Yogi Berra, I thought about it that night, looked it up, and it's interesting, did you know Yogi Berra did X? "

You look like you are sharing, but you are not, not about you. You've revealed nothing except the context that the person opened up a new subject to you and you brought it back to them. This is very flattering to people.

This is a strong situation to incorporate 'touch' into conversation. I.E. when you end a conversation, if it won't be too jarring, pat the guy on the shoulder as you walk by to leave and mention you enjoyed the conversation. With a woman, I think it's far far more situational, but touch will tend to being a strong connectivity to my experience.

TL/DR - Focus on learning something new the person knows, not the person themselves. Most people are boring as fuck and can't lead a conversation. You don't learn how to be a good conversationalist/moderator/active listener by talking to a fellow one, you learn by talking to people who have no skill set at all and have no desire to, see it as pumping out a girl who is 2 just to learn how to thrust right.

One last thing, and this is the bonus round. When your conversation skills get very very very good, two things happen

  1. You can close in any context with people where you voice is implied. Not just girls, but business, other relationships, dealing with difficult people, etc.

  2. You appreciate meeting the very rare true "active listener", often these people can become very good friends, or if it's a woman, maybe a girl you see as a really quality potential person.

Want to know when your skills are really starting to peak? To me, the litmus is when people around you, not in the conversation, eavesdrop, and either try to enter the conversation, or ask you about it later or delay their schedule a little just to hear you keep going with your banter.

Good conversation stands out.

Good conversation projects many of the Alpha qualities that TRP talks about, even if you don't have them all, it gives general people that perception

Good conversation is the gateway to seduction. If men are about real, and women are about feel, your words can hit every trigger inside her over and over.

Counter-intuitive, making it about them, is really making it about bettering you. To me, this is the basis of appearing unselfish in these kind of interactions, the benefits hits you on the backend, without you noticing.

[–]THERPRP 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I'd organize and format this if I were you, and make it an original post.

[–]hawkfan9 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Seriously, this deserves a post of its own. You brought up excellent insightful points. I'm attempting to be engaged as you say, and this taught me a lot. Saved this comment.

[–]Vajesticles 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saving all this. Really easily-digestible and knowledgeable stuff when formatted like this.

[–]pl00pt 2 points2 points [recovered]

I've been complimented as a good listener but I still find my conversations inevitably reach a point where the person realizes they've been doing all the talking and suddenly they try to excuse themselves or something. I'm still not quite getting those conversations that ramps up to be the one others eavesdrop in on.

I have friends that do tend to get into attention getting conversations and the thing I notice about them is they're less logical and almost like bits, lots of jokey jabs and not really talking about anything most of the time. I've had trouble all my life with this kind of 'palsy' conversation and I tend to have more logical informational conversations kind of like what you're describing but I find they don't really go anywhere except with other very logical intellectual people (usually men) like myself.

I think there's a sweet spot and I know PUA's talk a lot about making conversations more emotional and I think in addition to the ratio there is something about making your portion of the ratio hit more emotional targets and not just having a factual discussion. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on this or where I might be going wrong.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Witty one liner comments that have multiple meanings can be very entertaining. Humor is always good. Also you can end the conversation before it fizzles out

[–]-Riskbreaker- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is gold, thanks for laying it all out

[–]dog_baby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was a professional journalist for 20 years, interviewed hundreds of people with a wide variety of attitudes towards me, and this basic approach works most of the time. One tip: Don't be afraid of silence. Whether it's a moment between two people who trust each other, or a hostile interaction, being able to maintain some silence encourages the other to fill in the gap and makes it easier to move the talk forward. I highly recommend watching professional interviewers to pick up tips. The Donald's favorite Megan Kelly is very good at both civil and hostile interviews.

[–]MrProfessorDoctor 0 points1 point  (0 children)


How would I start the conversation in the first place to give the stage to them?

[–]OgreMagoo -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

If you are dealing with a woman, always end the conversation if possible by pointing out how unique she is to other women around you. I.E. "You know, most women I've met, and I've traveled all over, would not make that observation, I'm actually impressed here"

Cannot disagree with this strongly enough. This is condescending and unnecessarily negative, which isn't attractive. You need to be able to praise someone without dragging other people down.

There's also a sexist undertone: "Wow, you're really quite clever -- unlike most women I meet." It's essentially what you're saying, and it just sounds awful. So yeah, at least make your negative comment nongendered, and ideally get rid of it entirely.

[–]Heathcliff-- 13 points13 points [recovered]

Nah get out of here with the PC shit. Women on the interent say they get insulted by these kind of compliments but when they actually get one they're incredibly flattered, especially if it's coming from a hugh value male who they percieve to have met/banged lots of women.

Every woman wants to feel special and better than all the other girls.

[–]OgreMagoo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not being PC. I'm just trying to advocate against sounding like an asshole. Consider:

Wow, you're really professional -- unlike most painters I've worked with.

Wow, you're really down-to-earth -- unlike most professors I've studied with.

Wow, you're really considerate -- unlike most men I've met.

You're insulting a group that they belong to. Why is it so hard to believe that this isn't exactly going to endear you to them? Talking like this just makes you sound like an unpleasant jerk. No one who is worth spending time with is going to take that bullshit.

[–]sensitiveduck 3 points4 points  (1 child)

this should not have positive karma on TRP.

[–]watchthesnails 97 points98 points  (36 children)

Nice post OP, ties well with:

The 4th Law of Power: Always say less than necessary.

Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends And Influence People key point: Become interested in other people. (Carnegie wrote that if one was to learn just one thing from his book it better be this one thing).

As for becoming less selfish, I have found that reading stoic philosophy (Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a good one) and meditating helps. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

During any one conversation you should aim to follow the 70/20/10 rule:

Listen 70% of the time.

Ask questions 20% of the time.

Offer small input 10% of the time.

[–]Solpig 23 points23 points [recovered]

"Meditations" is a must read. Notes from M.A TO M.A..... he didn't write it as a book, per se, but as his own personal observations on a variety of topics while being the most powerful man in the world.

[–]blackhawks93 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Exactly. It was tradition to burn journals after death but his survived. He would hate the fact that millions of people have read his personal journals but he was a stoic so he would probably be unfazed.

[–]RPFlame 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Speaking of Stoics, there's a book from Ryan Holiday, who's supposedly pupil of Robert Greene, about Stoicism, and he keeps it practical instead of historical.

[–]AtlasAtlasAtlas 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Ryan Holiday

Ego Is the Enemy, The Daily Stoic and The Obstacle Is the Way

[–]notcarl 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah these are more accessible than raw stoicism

[–]AtlasAtlasAtlas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, Meditations is an essential first read though

[–]RPFlame 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes! I'm going through the daily stoic and I like it, although oldschool stoics hate that he reduced it to the practical and pragmatic steps to be one. But Ryan's motivation to write this book was that everything so far felt too "academic" to be accessible and applicable to the average person, and stoicism is a philosophy of how to live your life.

He makes the distinction of learning how to apply philosophy vs. learning how historical figures applied it, and focuses on replicating those chunks. Not saying that Meditations is a bad book, it's great. But they were never meant for public reading. Through the focal lens of a person who wants to extract actionable advice you can see better. I think that Ryan wrote the daily stoic with the help of an Aurelius translator who's considered to have the most accurate translation.

[–]AtlasAtlasAtlas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bang on mate, here's the link to the article in case anyone is interested http://ryanholiday.net/100-things-learned-10-years-100-reads-marcus-aureliuss-meditations/

Meditations is a life changing book

[–]yomo86 19 points20 points  (20 children)

Carnegie minced it quite a bit. Fake sincerity, to be honest I fucking despise the liberal culture here in city but as soon as you listen and give -- as you said -- small input and lull them into a web of fake interest they start pursuing you... because you give those morons a sense of meaning.

[–]watchthesnails 16 points17 points  (17 children)

Right. I don't believe anyone can be genuinely interested in other people. There is always some hidden motive, like winning friends and influencing people. The interest just has to appear genuine.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 28 points29 points  (14 children)

I'm genuinely interested in some people when they're interesting. If they happen to be a woman, it makes it easier to fuck them. If they happen to be a man, it makes them think more of you (and oftentimes give you opportunities). As someone who's gone from the selfish loser to in many cases the life of the party, I can attest that practicing being interested, and succeeding in being genuinely interested is possible.

The motive of being interested in what someone has to say doesn't have to be a "hidden motive". And other motives don't necessarily subtract from being genuine.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I've always been a guy who asks good questions and shit and been genuinely interested in other people. But people NEVER ever ask about me. I'm convinced it's a low value thing. They'll answer questions but not interested in asking them to someone they consider low value. What do you think to that? How often do you encounter people like yourself where they're genuinely interested in your life?

[–]bullmooseman[S] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Agree with live free or die. People don't give a shit. I'm the most interesting person I can think of (yeah I'm humble too) but they're too self absorbed to ask. And you know what? That's ok. You come across as mysterious and charming, without ever needing to talk about yourself. It is the listener who holds all the power, not the talker.

[–]AmbiguouslyYou 4 points4 points [recovered]

You're the most interesting person you can think of due to your knowledge of yourself. You just don't know anyone else well enough for them to be interesting to you.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's mostly because they only care about themselves. If people who don't know this rule are asking you questions, it's because they're confused or interested in you.

Stop basing your worth on whether or not people care about you.

[–]notcarl 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You should read "it's not all about me." but in general if I'm having a conversation with someone and they never ask any question about me, that's a red flag - they are being rude

[–]1empatheticapathetic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's it exactly. I think they decide to be interested in me or not, based on my appearance or status or whatever. And no one is ever interested enough to ask questions back.

I've learned to be less needy, more chilled and socially adept in interactions but no one actively asks about me. I usually have to bring up something about me that's relevant to the conversation myself.

[–]watchthesnails 1 point2 points  (6 children)

If they happen to be a woman, it makes it easier to fuck them. If they happen to be a man, it makes them think more of you (and oftentimes give you opportunities).

Those are hidden motives (hidden as in the recipient isn't aware that you have them). I believe they do subtract from being genuine. You can still fake it and appear genuine though (again, as long as the other motives are hidden).

[–]bullmooseman[S] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Personally, I make an effort not to hide my motives. Women can read your mind that you want to fuck them. If you try to hide it you look like a loser. If you show it in your eyes without hesitation or apology it turns them on. They'll tell you to stop looking at them like that, because your audacity turns them on and they know they shouldn't fuck you like they want to. But they will.

[–]watchthesnails 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a good point. Don't always try to hide your motives. Genuine interest does not have to be expressed through words. It can also be expressed through eye contact.

[–]icecow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

f you show it in your eyes without hesitation or apology it turns them on.

Unless you look undesirable. Then you are creepy.

The truth is this works both ways.

tl;dr If you don't keep yourself up to a degree you are creepy

[–]bullmooseman[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

People want to engage in social/economic transactions. You're not screwing them over. You're working on a mutually beneficial arrangement that provides value to both parties. Everyone knows you have motives, and trying to hide them makes you less likeable.

[–]watchthesnails 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that trying to hide your motives can backfire if you are bad at it. Get better at it, while applying it with caution, and get good at reading other people's motives also. That is just as important. Know thy enemy. You don't want to get screwed over in the transaction and receive less value than the other person. While most transactions are mutually beneficial, the majority doesn't provide equal value to both parts.

4th law of power. Expose as little information as possible to the enemy. Do this while getting to know as much about your enemy as possible.

[–]J_AsapGem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

offering realness is very valuable, realness being ( omg i wish i can do what this person is doing he doesn't give af ) that's what people say we all want to let go but our ego keeps us back thinking what others will think of us, but when we see someone that doesn't give af genuine we can't resist that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they can. I'm genuinely interested in people, how they think, why they do what they do. This is very useful information.

[–]hahayeahthatscool 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just describe every living person at work why don't you

[–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Machiavellism is mostly assumed and even spotted by those who are Machs themselves.

Many people just "feel good" ie. selfish when they do good things to others and assume that others do the same -- this is nothing new; even cultural insincerities ("How are you") are, at least subconciously, percieved by the majority as sincere.

If everybody hated this behaviour in general or just at work it would stop. In an instant.

[–]aanarchist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

it's as if having an authentic conversation is completely out of the question.

[–]xraigekoux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read the book and I most definitely agree with that sentiment. However, I was curious how this concept applies on a first date. How would the other person actually get to know you with only that 10%

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Seems to make sense. Watch out you don't become an annoying nosey fucker though. I've had a speight of people just asking me lots of questions (dates as well) and I get sick of being pressed for information when Im not in the mood to have a ramble.

My ex boss had obviously read some book like Carnegie's, and would pepper me with deep thinking questions when I was just looking to either work or get some downtime when things were quiet. He was a nice guy, but his tactics were obvious and just a pain in the ass rather than charismatic.

Actually, how about dates who ask a lot of questions? Are they putting you on the spot? I try and flip it so that I'm asking a lot too, seems that this could be an interesting dynamic to talk about.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

True, obviously the person has to want to talk to you. Typically, it's more like one question and then you say things (not necessarily questions) to get them to keep talking: summarize what they're saying and they'll keep elaborating. And yeah for some bizarre reason I hate getting asked questions and always turn the answer into a joke, flip it back to them, whatever. I'd rather stay elusive, not too comfortable talking about myself.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, more like actively listening.

[–]like_jinkies_man 9 points10 points  (1 child)

God, this is so spot on. I'm a bit of a closeted extrovert with bouts of extreme and successful socialization, and in a real way, I lose myself ingroup discussions. I find that my responses are spontaneous, extemporaneous, and always genuine. Still, I have trouble leaving the house. It seems my biggest approach anxiety is approaching the outside world.

[–]Eyeswears 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As long as you're being true to yourself, not subjecting yourself to unnecessary stress will put you in the 99%. Most people use the word "should" way to often. They don't listen to the honest voice inside that tells them when they are being a coward. If you know when your idleness stems from a place of honest disinterest or hamstering cowardice, you'll be on the path to being a fulfilled person.

[–]Cowscomehome 8 points9 points  (2 children)

That's great, but how? How do you turn off the monologue?

[–]bullmooseman[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

By being wrapped up in what the other person has to say. You will still have an inner monologue, but it expresses itself in the form of spoken words.

[–]throwaway320_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In got this from the book "The Charisma Myth" by Olivia Fox Cabane.

Meditate for a few seconds on the spot (you're not actively listening anyhow, so nothing is lost). Just breathe in, focus on your breath (how it feels, where it is located, etc). This will get your monologue to stop, since your focus has shifted. Once you are done, snap back to reality, back into the conversation.

[–]babybelly 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Ive been living like that for about 2 years now. Feel like an air head and i don't even weed. My perception for time is also really whacky. Dont overdo nihilism guys.

[–]sensitiveduck 1 point2 points  (2 children)

why is that?I can't switch back to my old over reactive analyzing everything brain modus. Social life has improved but I feel less intelligent....

[–]babybelly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

balance is key otherwise youd just be a psychopath

[–]Eyeswears 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still brainwashed. (Don't worry, I am, too.) BP men have successfully rebranded submissiveness and obsessiveness as "intelligence" to give themselves an identity and consolation prize for not being brave enough to become the men they want to be, i.e. confident, outgoing, and carefree. A BP man is a slave to his "interests". Meanwhile, the interests of a RP man are varied and serve him, not the other way around.

[–]Redbeam100 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Charisma is essentially your potential as your own leader. The more Charisma the more independent you tend to be therefore women love it.

[–]Fort-Wahnee 9 points10 points  (4 children)

OP how many tabs did you drop yesterday?

[–]trippinallday 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Not enough. If you don't wake up on the side of the road 70 miles from where you live you didn't take enough acid.

[–]caP1taL1sm 14 points15 points  (2 children)

You've clearly never taken acid...

[–]trippinallday 3 points4 points  (1 child)

joke/jōk/ noun

a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.

[–]caP1taL1sm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

admittedly your username does check out which makes it worse in a way

[–]Ozymanberg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Been looking into mindfulness and staying present a lot and it has improved my interactions and game exponentially. Definitely going to try this out.

[–]writemeoffgiveuponme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just talking to the brother in law about this. If a girl is chatting you up it's your job to not fuck it up. You do that by talking about yourself. Always redirect the conversation back to her. After all, she's her own favorite subject. Keep it light.. Keep it funny. Don't linger, Leave on a good note.

[–]FleshFleshForFantasy 2 points2 points [recovered]

So if you have to make yourself "inexistant"...Does that mean that being "mindful" via meditation is not recommanded since it supposed to make yoursself fully aware in your environnement?

Just trying to understand the nuance

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As RSDTyler said, all important personal epiphanies are basically the resolutions of paradoxes.

Here - it is the same thing, basically, being present in the moment. Only in one instance - it's being present when you are alone with your fears, desires, aspirations and so forth while letting go of your daily grind, and in the other - you are present in the moment that you share with others, where you need to get out of your own head, opening yourself to the world around you, amused mastery, and so forth.

Basically it's the good old "time and place for everything".

It's also a cycle.

[–]TooMuchToDoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Back when I did sales, it was common practice in our team to talk as highly about each other as possible before bringing them out to speak. Not only does this bring credibility to your friend and make others think that he's worth his salt, but it also makes him feel like a rockstar and have good thoughts about you and your positive attitude. The concept applies outside of my practice too-- speak of your friends like they're rockstars, and they'll do the same to you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If you could read other people's mind, you would probably be disappointed because the sad reality is that people do not think that much about you. They are too busy thinking about themselves, worrying about what other people are thinking about them. While you are worrying about what other people are thinking of you, they are worrying about what you are thinking of them.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The goal of the red pill, as I understand it, is too accept how people are in reality. Being disappointed in someone implies they aren't living up to your expectations. Once you internalize how people really are, it doesn't bother you. That's just how it is, and all you can do is be the best you can be, utilizing their selfishness to your own benefit, and their own benefit.

[–]RPFlame 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wrote a post about Ego a few days ago and people attacked the definition by misinterpreting what I meant to say with what they thought I mean.

Everyone cares about nothing more than himself and getting his ideas and beliefs validated. Even if he has an advice to give that is "good for you" chances are that the moment that piece of advice turns up to work he just validated that he's right.

I'm not saying that in a bad way. But the truth is that interactions become so much better when you stop waiting for your turn to unload your bucket of thoughts. Ironically, it's better for you to not talk that much about you.

It also gives an air of mysticism around you, since the human brain just wants to fill the gaps of knowledge with whatever it finds believable, so as soon as you leave a positive momentum/impression, let it slide on its own.

[–]newls 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Great post. We're all guilty of overtly pushing out from our egos in conversations sometimes, but the most charismatic people rarely ever talk about themselves in conversation.

If you let someone indulge their ego in conversation, they'll often walking away feeling great about you because of it.

[–]Kingreaper333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is straight from the chapter on charm from the art of seduction, I would recommend reading that if your interested in furthering this theory.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Question: Does this apply to gaming women? Is'nt just asking questions and seeming really interested iin them a way to turn them off? I heard of a report that said on dates, men do better when they act aloof and shit.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me this seems to work for women. Usually as I'm talking to a most likely boring woman, I'm digging to find something interesting about her. The idea is to steer the conversation to something that's interesting. Any time she emotes, I emote her thoughts as a hyperbole. Exaggerate, whatever, in order to get her more excited about her own life. Also allows you too tease her, make jokes, whatever.

[–]Vajesticles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is one of the best posts I've seen on TRP for a while.

[–]aanarchist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so when i'm not in my head and actually having authentic conversation, does this mean when other people have no fucking clue what i'm talking about are socially awkward?

[–]1Entropy-7[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The term I use is "unselfconscious".

It's party about DNGAF but more about being comfortable in your own skin. Still, you have to learn to STFU. Other people like to hear themselves talk . . about themselves. Indulge them but don't be that person.

[–]Eyeswears 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think the ego is great for strategy but not tactics, so I partially agree. It gets in the way of carrying out the plan cooked up by the ego. At the same time, if I look back at my own personal experiences as a heavily indoctrinated BP man, I didn't like being around people who made me the center of attention. It was always the people who involved me in their lives with direction who were the most charming. I don't think you're selfish if you want to be the person who does most of the talking. Most people are completely clueless and directionless and need (not just want) someone to take the reins and lead them. I know I was. And those people didn't make my life worse. They improved it. And eventually inspired me to become a truly independent person, too.

[–]LOST_TALE 0 points1 point  (1 child)

''the introvert is only selfish and self absorbed: he/she is not introverted.''

op logic

[–]TestoclesBalls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's just saying a lot of these "so called" introverts are just self absorbed and claiming a label that's currently hip this year.

[–]Chicken_Hands -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Like Bob said, that's not for all the time but I've myself lived some good moments with that particular frame and can guarantee these same benefits. Sometimes if you much it too far, you can later recall yourself into dumb mistakes for being talk too much.

[–]bobsbigboi -5 points-5 points [recovered]

I agree with you that introverts are selfish, but I disagree that zero-ego is right at all times. Yes it can be charming but it can make you fail shit-tests both from women and from men.

[–]watchthesnails 17 points18 points  (17 children)

Introversion implies that you quickly get tired of being in social situations. That the amount of social energy you have at your disposal is low. It has nothing to do with selfishness or self-absorption. You can be the least selfish person in the world and still be introverted.

Amount of social situations one has participated in does not say anything about one's selfishness or lack thereof.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Every human exchange is an economic transaction. At your work, if you don't expend effort into it you will not gain value from it. Lottery winners aren't permanently happy. Money in and of itself doesn't make you happy, expending effort towards a goal wraps up the entire human experience of happiness. We have evolved to feel satisfied after expending effort. Do you think a caveman who's entire life was a struggle thought about depression? No, he was wrapped up in his work of surviving. The depressed are people with lives that have become so easy that they fail to find any meaning in them (because meaning comes from effort).

If this is the way working transactions are, why would social transactions be any different? We gain energy from creating social value (as in being entertaining, charismatic, inspiring, etc.). If the introvert gains little or nothing from social interactions, he is not creating social value. He's being selfish.

[–]watchthesnails 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Your argument implies that every social transaction provides an equal amount of social value. I do not believe that is the case. Some social transactions can provide very little social value - an argument is a good example of this. Others can provide immense value - like someone giving away a highly valued object, that he wasn't using, for free.

The amount of social transactions one participates in does not correlate with the amount of social value one creates. While introverts tend to participate in less social transactions, it does not mean that they provide less social value. It doesn't mean that they gain less value either. Yes, they expend more mental energy on participating in these social transactions, but this just means that they will have to be more selective about the transactions they choose to participate in.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So the introvert who bitches about not having many friends and not getting laid has less of a need for sex and friends than an extrovert? I think he has more of a need for these things, because he has less outlets to obtain them. Maybe he doesn't need them as much, and that's fine. But he shouldn't complain when he doesn't have them.

[–]watchthesnails 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He has the same need as anyone else so he will have to perform better in the transactions that he is able to participate in. Get more out of them. Same need, less attempts. More consideration has to go into each attempt. I agree complaining doesn't lead to anything and should be frowned upon. One has to be constructive and willing to improve.

[–]matthew8367 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Introverts don't do that, you're describing a socially-inept, defeatist extrovert. Introverts don't care enough to bitch about it.

[–]kamwren -1 points0 points  (11 children)

That the amount of social energy you have at your disposal is low.

How is that different from selfishness? No one cares what you feel deep down in your heart, it's all about what you can do, and how much you can offer.

[–]watchthesnails 4 points5 points  (4 children)

X social transactions != X value created

X social transactions * Y value per transaction = X * Y value created

In plain English: How much you can offer does not directly depend on the amount of social transactions you partake in. Some social transactions, such as arguments, can provide negative value.

[–]bullmooseman[S] -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

So the more social interactions, the more value created just from sheer numbers. On top of this the quality of interactions goes up as you learn to better create value within social interactions: practice improves quality.

[–]watchthesnails 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The value you provide in social transactions is not solely derived from your social skills. An example would be launching a website: This is in essence a social transaction where you provide other people with something you have been working on for a long time. You will probably demand money in return. If the amount of money you gain is larger than the amount of money you spent building it, then you have essentially gained value from the transaction. The transaction was made possible by a large array of skills that aren't purely social.

Getting better at dealing with people and improving one's social skills is a great way to provide greater value in this world but it is not the only way.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Absolutely! Economic transactions are just as, if not more important.

[–]watchthesnails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure. I'd like to point out that every economic transaction is also social. Money is social value. In an economic transaction you exchange social value. An economic transaction just don't contain a lot of social interaction. Anyway, that's enough rambling about semantics for now!

[–]ioncehadsexinapool 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Introverts lose energy from social engagement. Extroverts gain energy. It's that simple

[–]kamwren 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They lose energy because they're selfish, head too far up their ass, and have a hard time keeping it above the shoulders and listening to others.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well I guess I'll just stop there

[–]kamwren 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Trust me, I talk from my own experience. I'm pathologically introverted, and it's all because of arrogance, narcissim, and hatefulness toward others.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah sometimes I feel really extroverted and other really introverted. I bet it depends on my mental state

[–]bullmooseman[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You don't fail a shit test by saying the wrong thing. You fail a shit test by caring (or if you're a perfect actor, showing you care). People can see through what you say, to what you are. This, in combination with being an idealized version of myself seems to work. Obviously you need to work on yourself in your own time to become the best you can be: but once you are, you no longer have to hide behind lies, calculated manipulation, or ego. You just are, and by forgetting yourself other people will bend under your influence.

[–]remyseven 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah I grew up introverted. It was not a choice. It took tremendous effort to pull myself out of it. This guy has no idea of what he's talking about.

[–]bullmooseman[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Obviously being selfish is an engrained trait, that we all have to deal with to some extent. Sure, some people may be more genetically inclined towards selfish behavior, but anytime people talk about introverts they're just stroking egos and hamsterring weakness.

[–]remyseven 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem is talking in absolutes. Everyone is selfish. At some point you will care more about your needs than another's. And that's healthy. Introverts aren't defined by selfishness. In my case it was defined by an oversensitivity to human interaction. Every day normal actions were hyperanalyzed. Also some family fuckedness had a lot to do with trusting people too, so there's that.

[–]rigbed -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I empathize but I think OP is right still because I feel like my situations have damaged my ego and in response my ego is easily shattered