mASF post by "express"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, August 8, 2005
>>Juggler says
>>that the focus is on being
>>GENUINE rather than deep, but
>>how do you make honest
>>statements that reveal any
>>VALUE in you in these
>>settings?
>
>Has nothing to do with the setting. You
>don't need a round table discussion to
>have a meaningful conversation. It can
>happen anywhere if you're willing to go
>there and expect, with total certainty,
>a solid response from the other person.
>This doesn't mean stare them down and
>make them talk deep with you. It just
>means you know they're the kind of
>person who likes talking about
>relationships for example. And so you
>bring it up without any hesitation
>whatsoever.
I recently listened to the podcast by Juggler and John on the Charisma Sciences
site, and they acknowledged that in a lot of settings people are unlikely to
want to go into deep conversations. Juggler said that the emphasis is on
honesty rather than profundity.
I still find it hard to make interesting and honest conversation in normal
social contexts. I tend to fall back on playful cockiness, which is a difficult
crutch to move away from.
>>Surely exhibiting
>>genuine value can only be done
>>by making deep points.
>
>Not true. Value has little to do with
>your ability to go deep. Chris Rock
>once said cool is the courage to be
>yourself despite what everyone else
>expects of you.
OK, good point.
>>But at
>>a party, for example, there's
>>really not much to declare or
>>state. Juggler gives the
>>example of saying "I like..."
>>if you're stuck for
>>statements, but this seems
>>pretty limited to me.
>
>Get more specific with "I like girls
>who..." This should make her qualify
>immediately if done right.
Good tip, although I probably wouldn't want to build entire conversations
around "I like girls who..." statements.
>Anything to make her chase/qualify is
>always fun..."It's too bad you're not my
>type."
>
>Also, turn any question you may want to
>ask into a cold read. "Do you go to
>school around here?" becomes "You must
>be a scuba diving major." More about
>tonality than anything else. Turn the
>pitch down at the end of the statement.
Cool.
>Practice stacking unrelated routines
>back to back with no transitions for a
>night or two. I see a lot of guys who
>are so desperate for a context. "I need
>a reason to approach, I can't expect a
>random woman on the street to have a
>conversation with me, let alone feel
>attracted to me." They're missing the
>point. Women enjoy a man who can sweep
>them off their feet, take charge, be a
>man, etc. It's okay to just talk about
>what you want with NO EXCUSES.
True. Although it rarely seems so simple. When you're at a party having just
met a girl, it's difficult to make strong statements about much, unless they're
negative. Maybe I'm being too focused on the situation in front of my nose, and
I need to make broader statements about my beliefs or experiences. But again,
it's that problem of inappropriate deepness.
>Most guys will use situations as a good
>excuse to ask a girl a question, so as
>to get 5 seconds of her attention. "you
>got a light...you come here
>often...where's your drink...what do you
>do...what's your name?" This boring
>dribble immediately slots you into the
>"just another boring guy" category.
>Better to say anything she doesn't
>expect...like "I hate you" with a sly
>grin.
I definitely agree that value-stacked, feelings-oriented conversation is more
interesting than factual fluff. No contest. But I often find myself searching
to say something about my personal feelings that's not too deep for a party,
for example. It's really tough, and I often get stuck inside my head trying to
work out what my reactions are to certain things, rather than having a good
conversational flow. As much as I agree with taking the lead, in practice I
haven't found it to be as easy as it sounds.
|
