The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

mASF‘s Recent “Causality Catastrophe”

mASF post by Prime Alpha

<< Home ... < Relevance Matches ... "tyler durden"

mASF‘s Recent “Causality Catastrophe”
You can search for more articles and discussions like this on the rest of this web site.

Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at [posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]

mASF post by "Prime Alpha"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, May 5, 2005

On 5/27/05 8:34:00 PM, anakken wrote:
>An excellent post, though it
>belongs in advanced, not

Heh, I'll take this as a compliment. Not many people write posts really worthy
of the advanced board.

However, the correlation-causality facts are things that EVERY person on this
board should be aware of, and are BASIC building blocks of any research,
seduction included.

This is why I posted in general.

>2) However, something needs to
>be clarified. There is a
>difference between what I'll
>call indirect causation and NO
>causation. The specific
>examples you listed:

Indeed, indirect causation, in that your visualizations (that are, at their
core, causally irrelevant or even harmful, such as a$$hole) directly cause you
to relax, or display assertiveness.

As I mentioned earlier, if you are going to visualize something visualize
something POSITIVE. Visualizing something negative might help you in the short
term, but when you do things IN ACCORDANCE with your character of an a$$hole,
you will likely mess up what your assertiveness achieved.

You want girls daydreaming about you, and NOT thinking "I like him so much but
he is such an a$$hole". Daydreaming about you is good. Having conflicts about
you is not.

>...Are what I'd call indirect
>causation and I argue that
>they do NOT harm our PUA

Ignoring a girl totally DIRECTLY harms your chances. Very simple here. See a
girl on the street that you like. In this specific case she hasn't noticed you
for whatever reason. Ignore her. She kept on her way and got lost in the crowd.

The uses of ignoring a girl for the purpose of teasing her is something WIDELY
misunderstood. If I have to tell a newbie one of two things: Ignoring is good,
or ignoring is silly - I'd go with silly.

AFTER he is better versed in seduction, I'd teach him that sometimes it's good
to walk into a bar, make EC with a girl and make some fun comment, THEN ignore
her for 5 minutes, then GO BACK to APPROACH her [ignoring has a minor role in
building anticipation here... but it's in the middle of 2 approaches!]. This is
an exception to the rule, and since it is in the middle of 2 approaches anyway,
is hardly even an exception.

>The best example here is the
>mindset. Some guy may adopt
>this mindset and then
>incorrectly assume that
>because he had this mindset,
>that girls wanted him, when in
>actuality it was the
>assertiveness that he adopted
>that turned the girls on.

Very true.

>may incorrectly think that
>girls like assholes when they
>actually like assertiveness.
>BUT...this is not that bad.

It is VERY bad if he starts doing things in accordance with that mindset.
Negative things, abusive things. Not that far fetched.

Just watch some soap opera and visualize yourself as the soap-opera's local
girl magnet or whatever, for crying out loud...

Better yet, visualize yourself as James Bond or Fight-Club's Tyler Durden.

Now THOSE are two positive mindsets.

One is more subtle, yet VERY assertive (James Bond). The other - more
straightforward, naughty in the good sense, you might say C&F too (Fight Club's
Tyler Durden).

>Why? Because if we go around
>incorrectly preaching "girls
>like assholes" it will STILL
>WORK. Guys will read that,
>adopt asshole mindsets, WHICH
>girls will like that.

This will work, yes... only for the men that happened not to do anything truely

>So no
>harm done at all, even though
>the causation is wrong. It is
>still INDIRECTLY a cause...

We still have a duty to find out, or get as close as possible, to the truths
and facts. Preaching newbies to be a$$holes is gross negligence, a betrayal to
our duties as scientists of seduction.

>The bad stuff out there is if,
>for example, someone decides
>to try peacocking for his
>first time with, I dunno, a
>pink hat...

Yes, we totally agree on this part, and the examples that follow.

If I had to sum this up, I'd say that we agree on the general idea, but you put
pink hat and a$$hole in different groups... and I think a$$hole is right up
there with pink hat. And even if not, I mentioned why just throwing "be an
a$$hole" at a newbie is wrong.

>3) Finally (somewhat of a
>tangent), let's not totally
>belittle the power of placebo.

I'm sure not... placebo is one ofthe most amazing phenomenon of humna nature.

BUT - why use a placebo when you can use the REAL THING ?

Again, placebos might vastly help in the short term. However, I doubt one would
grow much hair back from water rather than minoxidyl. I doubt a cancer pateint
will get much better from sugar than from real medicine in the long run. And I
doubt a budding PUA student will get much better from placebos, rather that
truely understanding what causes what and learning the right tools.

Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2005 by "Prime Alpha" with implicit permission provided to for reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the original author.


 Learn The Skills StoreStore
Learn Pickup By Watching