Gavin DeBecker is a security consultant who was often in the news as a commenter on cases involving celebrities in the 90’s, and he wrote a book about crime titled “The Gift Of Fear.” I have had a copy of this for a long time but am only now getting into it. In the chapter “Survival Signals” he talks about some of the tactics criminals use to break down the defenses of their potential victims.
I’ll let you get the book if you want the full rundown but they are the kind of manipulative phoniness commonly seen in salesmen or young men picking up girls. Many people, particularly those with an excessively optimistic view of human nature, are unable to appreciate that bad people are usually not ogres but generally quite good at appearing to be friendly, helpful, and nice when it suits them. DeBecker rips on the concepts of “charming” and “nice” particularly- they are usually just strategies for getting something, he says, and he cautions women that because someone appears charming or nice is no reason to trust them.
There are a few items on his list that have a direct counterpart in game. One is what he calls “typecasting”- the perpetrator implies something negative about the target, who is then expected to justify herself. On a superficial level this would seem like a “neg” but it’s more directly comparable to “qualifying.” Another is “too many details” where the perp puts a lot of effort into explaining himself to the target. Game often involves “routines” which may involve a lot of irrelevant detail as a distraction. Another is the “unsolicited promise” where the perp assures the target he will be leaving soon- just like a “false time constraint” where the PUA tells the woman he is meeting a friend in a few minutes.
DeBecker sees this as a problem for women because they are conditioned to chat politely with men who approach them rather than distinctly tell them they are not interested. He qualifies all this several times, even saying “I don’t mean to cramp the style of some crude Casanova.” He admits this type of behavior is engaged in by many people “without sinister intent”- although I would say trying to sell you something unsolicited is sinister intent. I remember a guy I knew casually and worked with invited me to lunch once, and I thought he actually wanted to be friends. Then he brings up some multi-level marketing thing.
DeBecker confirms game in that he explicitly dismisses “charm”, the word most often used in society to describe the kind of skills that game teaches, as an inborn character trait, but instead classifies it as simply a device, strategy or skill anyone can use for any reason, in his view probably bad.
I find DeBecker’s protests a little weak. Doesn’t he know this kind of thing, however tawdry, sad, or phony, is the grease of a great deal of human interaction? I’m sure he does, but he sees things differently. He relates his experience growing up in an extremely violent and abusive family and how it helped him learn to predict violence. When you have seen this behavior from the other side, you can never look at it in a benign way again.
As a low status male, you have probably seen a boy you knew well in school as a violent, sadistic psychopath talking to a girl, with a simpering smile, head tilted, body sagging to one side, weight on one foot, acting- I don’t know what to call it, but it looks pretty gay, and frankly it looks ridiculous coming from a guy who likes hurting people. But the girls go for it. (I’m not saying this is game, just this is how blue collar and lower class people act. It’s most obvious in black guys but lower class white guys do the same thing.) The logical conclusion is people are stupid and crazy. The primate behavior explanation is that faux submissive behavior toward a female by an aggressive male is a courtship ritual, that she is being honored by it.
DeBecker recommends women explicitly reject all unsolicited advances but admits this is hard to do. Social conditioning to be nice is the easy, politically correct explanation, but what he doesn’t take into account is that women are always looking for a better deal. A woman has access to a certain pool of men in her social grouping, but unless she is a supermodel or a beautiful heiress this pool will be suboptimal. You see this in personal ads all the time- Christian women, for example, seeking highly Christian men. You go to a church don’t you? With a singles group probably? So why are you here? Those guys not good enough for you? No, and the subtext is there in all female personal ads- “I want a guy richer and better looking than those I meet on a daily basis and can attract with the looks and personality I display in person.”
This blog is all about getting what you can, so don’t mistake this for social criticism, which is of little interest to me. My point is get over the revulsion for this kind of behavior that you have as an omega- and that DeBecker has as an alpha with an omega childhood. Guidos and life insurance salesman do this because IT WORKS! It shouldn’t, but it does.
The objective truth is women associate nice clothing and these types of behavior as high status markers. They are wrong but you can take advantage of that fact. I work with rich people and they generally dress hideously, in expensive but ugly clothes, or casually because they don’t need to impress anyone. And they are often boorish assholes. A middle class, 25 year old “9” would likely get out the Mace if approached by the typical multimillionaire.