A few excerpts from “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion” by Robert B. Cialdini for the Harvard Business Review (October 2001) are well worth documenting.
Israeli researchers writing in 1983 in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recounted how they asked half the residents of a large apartment complex to sign a petition favoring the establishment of a recreation center for the handicapped. The cause was good and the request was small, so almost everyone who was asked agreed to sign. Two weeks later, on National Collection Day for the Handicapped, all residents of the complex were approached at home and asked to give to the cause. A little more than half of those who were not asked to sign the petition made a contribution. But an astounding 92% of those who did sign donated money.
A single expert-opinion news story in the New York Times is associated with a 2% shift in public opinion nationwide, according to a 1993 study described in the Public Opinion Quarterly. And researchers writing in the American Political Science Review in 1987 found that when the expert’s view was aired on national television, public opinion shifted as much as 4%.
As a reminder to myself if not also you, the emotional response is the loser’s response. Yes, the sheeple empowerment is fucking terrible.
I know from my sarging that rejection is a goldmine of data. If I can disconnect my emotions from reacting to the rejection, I can often see the plain truth of what happened, or what is happening. Sometimes, I can make the adjustment right then and there and continue the set. A rejection is sometimes a passed shit test requiring reframe. Women are very stateless, and the younger the more so, which is where we all should be making our efforts. The same stimulation works the same way pretty much to get the same response.
Consider the above excerpts to be a goldmine of data. What can you do to move public opinion by 2%. If you could move the opinion of HBs on the issue of sex from 0% to 2%, now you have enough charisma to make getting laid simply a numbers game, a weak on, but a substantial difference. In a city, that little 2% off of virtual or real zero would be a huge difference in absolute terms of effort and reward. Imagine if you gave yourself an X% edge every damn day.
I’m not sure how to apply this just yet, but asking the question at all has just improved my chances by Y%. I will keep asking the question, leaving it open for theorizing and experimentation.
We have no choice in the game playing us. What the mindful PUA haters don’t understand is the human nature they seek to order by their studious philosophies. Garbage in, garbage out.
There are more articles on ‘influence’ at the HBR, but theory means nothing without practice. Design a concrete method or experiment and test it out in the field. Hmm. I think I want to network by getting to a platonic C1 phase when I meet people. What would happen in the platonic form of A1, A2, A3, C1?
Here are some untested but testable ideas:
A2 – Find similarities, mention palatable expertise or strengths.
A3 – Give specific praise in response to ‘qualification’.
C1 – Give a small value from strength not supplication in the frame of partnership.
With women not totally in love with someone use nonverbal cues of instinctive attraction under the cover and constraint of a platonic frame.
If you have not gotten Mystery Method, I suggest you get it. It is worth the $20. It is well written in structural organization and clarity. It’s a little more complete and clear that the free stuff you read and watch online, and a lot more concise.
Yours in rational patriarchy,
—‘Reality’ Doug, 02 September 2015