Venusian Arts - Come pre-loaded in pyschopaths?

[luke wilson]

Before I start, I know this is essentially an esoteric forum and the subject of this thread might not exactly be esoteric but it might be aswell, I dont really know. That is why I decided to write it.

I dont know if anyone noticed but over the last 5-7 years the PTB have been busy giving alot of air-time to a group of people called pick up artists who promise to reveal secrets about relationship building to people who dont exactly know how to. Recently, I was given a book and I have been reading through it and I have to say, it's quite logically and scientifically written and quite convincing that me rejecting what is written in it only amounts to letting emotional thinking control my thought process. Not everything in it is accurate as some theories are taken as proven fact e.g. evolution, but regardless, it's quite convincing and unlike most people the writer of the book has a proven track record with his method and it get's him and others results. So, theory to experiment to validation. I am going to post afew screenshots just so I can get some feedback on this book. My take on it is it reduces women to "machines" and essentially understanding the nature of the female machine will result in being able to manipulate her. There is no mention of the female spiritual being let alone individuality but what makes it so convincing is that what the author talks about, works and can be validated by mere observation.

So my question is, is it worthwhile taking this to heart in the hope of building and improving relationships with women. I know women wont particularly like being talked about like the way the author is and most would probably disagree with him but I put that down to emotional thinking. It works and maybe pyschopaths probably have the skill set the author is talking about, inbuilt and ready to go and this might explain why they keep falling for them over and over again. Either way, I am curious to hear some thoughts just from the little snippets I have posted.

The thing that is bugging me about it, is to get the girl according to his method would result in me changing who I am and most people aswell - due to this fact, he has a training regime where you go out and you practise over and over again until it becames second nature. He compares it to playing a video game, he says, the 1st time, you'll fail but the more you play the better you become and if you fail, it's as simple as hitting the restart button as failing wont like result in death or physical injury or anything like that just aslong as you gain control over your emotions and not take rejection personally or be controlled by your emotions. So, he tells us, what girls respond to so that we can eventually gain power and manipulate her feelings. He calls them switches and it's the job of the guy to switch them on and as soon as they go on, she is at your mercy and has no control over what she feels. Later on in the book he goes to talk about this switches and all the different stages of courtship giving a step by step guide on what every stage entails, what the pitfalls are and how to avoid them etc etc.

 

[luke wilson]

Zoom in if the text is to small...

 

[anart]

So my question is, is it worthwhile taking this to heart in the hope of building and improving relationships with women.

No.

Get to know yourself, love yourself and Work on yourself. That, in itself, will attract the woman who is right for you.

What you've referenced is A-influence manipulation techniques developed by and for those who can't do anything else.

 

[Buddy]

So my question is, is it worthwhile taking this to heart in the hope of building and improving relationships with women.

No, not if your goal is "building and improving relationships".

Sounds like something out of some Mind Control Marketing book. This kind of material seems to work on a lot of people, but I think the general tolerance for these 'marketing' methods of the past will eventually drop considerably.

A more Real person with something Real to offer is one who has a solid core of something valuable that others can benefit from and doesn't need manipulation techniques. This takes lots of hard work and correctly interpreting feedback.

According to Gurdjieff, and I'm paraphrasing here, when someone knows how to make shoes, coffee, or something else really well it is then possible to talk to him. Because people generally know how to do things just anyhow...and manipulation is the default 'anyhow' collection of methods, OSIT.

This book was written to make money for the author by meeting a need within a certain type of individual. The author apparently knew what buttons he was pushing but the reader isn't even aware of the extent to which he is also being manipulated.

Besides, of what use will this be to anyone if the 'targeted' woman can see the interplay of underlying assumptions in your every word and action and knows how to expose it? Or learns how to, after the fact?

 

[luke wilson]

Thanks for the feedback.

I essentially agree with everything said. However, having read most of the book, be it speed-reading as I havent really had time to sit down and read it indpeth, he kind of says exactly what anart and bud said. In anarts case, at the begining he says, he hopes the book doesnt define ones life but instead enriches it. In terms of what bud said, he has this thing that he calls DHV or demonstration of higher value which is having something solid and valuable at the core which other people will automatically pick up on and thus resulting in them gravitating towards you. For those who dont have this, he gives techniques on how to give the impression of having them.

However, the bottom line is, manipulation and the general drive is STS. From what I can gather, he tells alot of truths but then he proceeds on telling the reader how they can use the truth to get what they want. He places the choice in the readers hands, i'll give you the tools and you decide what to do with it. Also from having read this, I can see that not anyone can do it, it requires people to work on themselves, to trim and get themselves in shape(physically, emotionally, intelectually), to figure themselves out, to understand there vulnerabilities to be able to be socially savvy and understand other people, it also pushes people to find value in themselves so that others can find value in them. Personally, I am torn.

I dont like how he generalises women interms of functionability. I see it as cars, you have bmws, mercedes, fiat, jaguar etc etc and essentially what he does is he tells you how the vehicle works and how to drive it. At the end of the day it doesnt matter if it is a porshe or a Kia, the basic rules are the same.

I went out recently with a friend and he put a challenge down about just talking to random people but using the method in the book. What got me is all the emotions that were going through me, the fear of approach, the fear of not being liked, the fear of looking bad, all this. It seemed to me like a mine-field of doing work. What programs will come up? Why do all this different fears exist? I mean, it was like 9 tenths of the battle was against oneself.

See, like anart said, get to know yourself, he says the only way to do this is if you step out of your comfort zone, go out there and try, meet your demons, defeat them and horn your skills. Love yourself, you have to essentially otherwise there would be no point of doing any of this. Work on yourself, it's work. So, eventhough the book essentially gives people skills that is hoped they would use to be more STS in nature interms of, all this is geared to sex, bottomline, the journey there will involve alot of work some of which is esoteric(like fighting personal demons) and aslong as someone just changes the motivation, then my take on it is that it isnt such a bad book.

That is why I am torn, not interms of what I will do but interms of what to think of it.

 

[Buddy]

For those who dont have this, he gives techniques on how to give the impression of having them.

Now, why do you suppose he would do that? ;)

I see a subtle encouragement not to worry about 'inner value' because "the end justifies the means".

If you want to reach out to people, then reach out with what you want in return. Demonstrate the kind of inner character you want to attract and let this "me meme" do the sorting for you. Unfortunately, Nature doesn't seem to supply any entitlement that anyone "like" you or me. That's why we have to earn stuff, and no magic formula is going to overcome a lifelong deficiency in social skills. I learned that lesson myself.

The good news is, once you develop these skills yourself, you will have them forever, OSIT. :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

FWIW, this guy endorses Maslow, who was really messed up (either seriously damaged as a child - his relationship with his mother was pathological to the extreme; or schizoid). Dabrowski gives a pretty good criticism of his theory in his books, and even had a fall out with a colleague when the guy inserted whole sections of self-actualization stuff into one of Dabrowski's books without permission...

 

[Buddy]

FWIW, this guy endorses Maslow...

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs figure prominently in a lot of mind control type books - especially in the field of Marketing. Thing is, Maslow's Hierarchy and self-actualization pyramid is obsolete today.

Psychologist Dr. Steven Reiss agreed with the premise that human beings are creatures of desire, but thought that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was a bit too rigid. Using surveys of 6000 people and computer models, Reiss and graduate student Susan Havercamp arrived at 16 basic desires (and the what fors) that form people's personalities and behavior foundations.

So, basically Reiss is saying these 16 desires in no particular order and in different strengths can create a specific "desire profile". The relative importance individuals place on each desire has three interesting consequences:

1) Individuals differ to a greater extent than psychologists previously realized.
2) There are over 43 million possible combinations of the 16 basic desires that can be produced by answering questions in the Reiss Profile Survey and over 2 trillion different profiles can be assessed by the R.P.S.
3) A clash between conflicting and/or widely varying desire profiles can also explain the mechanism of why one person "doesn't get it" while another one will "get it" easily.

So, if anyone thinks the "total audience of women" is some monolith that is subject to formulaic rules of engagement, they are almost guaranteed to be mistaken! :D


ref:
-----------------
Life is a series of Presentations
8 Ways to Punch up your people skills @ work, home, anytime, anywhere
Tony Jeary
Simon & Schuster, 2004

Who am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities
Steven Reiss

Also:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

 

[Mr. Premise]

The blogger Ran Prieur wrote about this guy and these books last summer:

http://www.ranprieur.com/

"Also, I think the "seduction community" had some good insights and then went over to the dark side. In any context -- sex, money, politics -- if you benefit from influencing other people on a subconscious level, then you are making an alliance with unawareness -- a deal with the devil. If you know how to get what you want from others by "pushing their buttons", the ethical choice is: 1) don't do it, and 2) draw their attention to it so they learn to not let anyone else do it either. Human awakening is going to take us thousands of years, and the time to start is now. But in the short term, this choice makes your life more difficult, and it requires some self-discipline."

http://ranprieur.com/archives/030.html#notseduction

"May 17. (permalink) Brian comments on the seduction community:

'For better and worse, the Seduction Community has changed my life. I never realized that people were so irrational, that they responded to the silliest manipulations, and that sexual attraction was based on such crazy irrational things. It's crazy to think that there are people whose lives revolve around figuring out ways to get laid as many times as possible by as many attractive women as possible. It's really disheartening me and has changed the way I view humans, for the worse.'"

"'It's also made me much more protective of my significant other. I never realized why I was trapped in the "friend zone" with everyone, and reading things from the Seduction Community revolutionized my approach, and has made me much more attractive to women in general. But... when I thought my girlfriend loved me because I was awesome, fun, wanted to change the world, I was never worried about losing her. When I think that she is attracted to me because I'm cocky/funny, and initiated attraction a certain way, now I'm worried that any guy can do that. Especially when reading pick-up artist blogs about how these guys get happily married women to sleep with them, within one day of meeting them. It's really f***** up. It's hard for me to ever think I can fully love/trust someone again.'"


"This is similar to how rich guys never know if women really love them, or just love their money. And there is a simple and difficult solution: Don't use the techniques. It will make it harder for you to find someone, but when you do, you will know that she likes you for something you have and other guys don't.

"But this answer is too simple, because when you look through the advice that pickup artists give, some of it is psychopathic and some of it is insightful and benign. Here's an example that two readers sent: The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon. In the third commandment, he tells you not to make a woman the center of your existence, but then immediately says that "women want to subordinate themselves". Yes, this is a culture that can't even imagine a relationship where one person is not controlling the other. The sixteenth is great advice: "Never be afraid to lose her." But in this context, the seventh is telling: Keep another woman as a backup, because otherwise your main woman can threaten to leave you, which "will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone."

"These guys don't have it. And not having it is both the cause and the effect of faking it. Consider number eleven: "Be irrationally self-confident." Why not build up a basis for rational confidence? Motivational gurus who talk about "confidence" are exploiting a bug in the English language, which uses the same word for two different things. One is cockiness, and the other might be called mastery: having skills and being aware of them. Cockiness can be bootstrapped, but skills must be learned through struggling and failure. Cockiness is a tempting road, and it can take you a long way, but eventually you have to go back to the beginning and start over. The "empty abyss" is the place where you should have built something real to stand on.

"I follow the straight and patient road of not-seduction. Here's a little list of rules:

1. Be Transparent. Show what you're feeling; say what you're thinking. Offer and accept communications at face value. Do this from the beginning, and the bad relationships will run from you like shadows from the light. Now, this doesn't mean you can't use non-verbal techniques to make people feel better -- but here is the test: If you were to explain everything you are doing and why, would the other person feel exploited, or honored?

2. Become Skilled at Being Single. Learn to make good food, pay your bills, motivate yourself, stay sane, and get sexual release, by yourself and with help from friends. Then why do you even need a partner? Exactly. But you might still appreciate a partner, which is a stronger position.

3. Embrace the Friend Zone. Having friends is a good thing. The suffering of the "friend zone" is an illusion created by desire. Let go of desire and the prison becomes paradise -- or the false friendship is exposed. Of course, you might still fantasize about another kind of relationship. The key is that you are not holding tension between where you are and where you are not.

4. Broaden Your Standards. Typically, guys who complain that women are attracted to a**holes, are themselves attracted to a**hole women. (Actually, this explains a lot about pickup artist culture.) Remember that nice person who you rejected for not being sexy enough? That's karma: you must follow the rules you make. At the same time, nobody wants to be settled for. Practice valuing qualities that are valuable.

5. Be Like Water. Do not push anything, but move instantly to fill any opening. This will not generate nearly as much sex as aggressive seduction, but it will make it better, by filtering out sex for the sake of proving something, and leaving only sex based on strong mutual attraction.

6. Sex Is Not the Goal. There is no goal. There is only the process: be who you are, and engage with what you encounter on that road."

 

[Approaching Infinity]

FWIW, this guy endorses Maslow...

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs figure prominently in a lot of mind control type books - especially in the field of Marketing. Thing is, Maslow's Hierarchy and self-actualization pyramid is obsolete today.

Psychologist Dr. Steven Reiss agreed with the premise that human beings are creatures of desire, but thought that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was a bit too rigid. Using surveys of 6000 people and computer models, Reiss and graduate student Susan Havercamp arrived at 16 basic desires (and the what fors) that form people's personalities and behavior foundations.

Thanks Bud. There's also the fact that human desires are only part of the picture. Dacher Keltner makes this point in his book "Born to Be Good" (which has some great info on the vagus nerve and compassion). According to him, most of the problems in the world are caused by the "homo economicus" view of human nature, which posits that we're all driven by desire, egoism, self-entitlement, etc. (He's partly correct - this is the schizoid view of human nature used by psychopaths.) In part it's true, but only in part. There's MORE to human nature than just that, but schizoids don't have this "other part", so their theories focus solely on it alone. This then filters down through academia and government. What they're missing are the social emotions and dynamics that are typical of mammalian life (what Gurdjieff called the "second brain"). We are social creatures, and our emotions (our awareness of our inner environment and that of others) are the dynamics that reconcile our relationships with others. Humans need each other, and this shows in our most human behaviors and the emotions that bring us together.

Then there's Dabrowski's angle. Yes, we have desires, drives, "lower" forces and functions. But fulfilling them is NOT necessary for "higher" levels of being and growth. In fact, growth often comes by denying those lower functions (e.g. the urge to punch someone's face, to make a sarcastic comment, to viciously insult someone who we perceive has hurt us, the desire for money thinking it will bring us happiness, the desire to control a sexual partner, etc., etc., etc.). So the theory is flawed from the root. It's too black and white, too rigid. And the lack of that third force is the clue to its pathology.

 

[Buddy]

I agree, AI. While you've described the problem quite clearly using the conventional terminology, I'm always on the lookout for ways to show the simpler, more elegant underpinnings of the way these schizoid and bi-polar motivations and thought patterns seem to compel people to confuse any issue horribly.

For example, off topic but still relevant to the third force, consider today's "anti-bully movement" initiated after the Columbine school shootings and led by psychologist Dan Olweus, the "father" of the movement.

Although these "anti-bullying" efforts were initially laudable in my estimation, hardly anyone sees that this 'movement' is now little more than an "anti-non-conformist" or "anti-assertive" movement where anyone, anywhere, exhibiting anything other than calm, mechanical, robotic behaviors and 'taking' whatever they're given can be labeled a "bully" and then adults and peers can initiate bullying behaviors against them, satisfying their own sadistic streaks, OSIT, while onlookers deny what they are seeing right in front of their eyes.

It's a sad state, indeed, and in these terms, the bully problem is getting worse as it is being "solved".

Fortunately, not everyone is blind to the real problem, though. Along with Israel C. (Izzy) Kalman, a school psychologist with 33 years experience in the New York public schools, there is attorney Jerry Moore who deals extensively with educational issues and is aware of the real problem, OSIT. Judging by the testimonials of a bunch of "satisfied" customers, there is now at least a bunch of social proof that contributes to exposing the underlying cognitive issues for all to see.

Without the third force, non-conformist = bully and "successful intervention" results in creating a (not(non-conformist)) - a person too terrified to assert themselves in any way - which is not the same as a healthy individual growing their emotional and social maturity and learning to solve their problems in a win-win kind of way. Instead, the latter would seem to be an individual integrated with the third force and in much better shape to truly help others as well.


ref:
------------------------
_http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-bully-witch-hunt/200812/time-end-the-bully-witch-hunt
_http://www.bullies2buddies.com/

 

[anart]

I agree, AI. While you've described the problem quite clearly using the conventional terminology, I'm always on the lookout for ways to show the simpler, more elegant underpinnings of the way these schizoid and bi-polar motivations and thought patterns seem to compel people to confuse any issue horribly.

For example, off topic but still relevant to the third force, consider today's "anti-bully movement" initiated after the Columbine school shootings and led by psychologist Dan Olweus, the "father" of the movement.

Although these "anti-bullying" efforts were initially laudable in my estimation, hardly anyone sees that this 'movement' is now little more than an "anti-non-conformist" or "anti-assertive" movement where anyone, anywhere, exhibiting anything other than calm, mechanical, robotic behaviors and 'taking' whatever they're given can be labeled a "bully" and then adults and peers can initiate bullying behaviors against them, satisfying their own sadistic streaks, OSIT, while onlookers deny what they are seeing right in front of their eyes.

It's a sad state, indeed, and in these terms, the bully problem is getting worse as it is being "solved".

Fortunately, not everyone is blind to the real problem, though. Along with Israel C. (Izzy) Kalman, a school psychologist with 33 years experience in the New York public schools, there is attorney Jerry Moore who deals extensively with educational issues and is aware of the real problem, OSIT. Judging by the testimonials of a bunch of "satisfied" customers, there is now at least a bunch of social proof that contributes to exposing the underlying cognitive issues for all to see.

Without the third force, non-conformist = bully and "successful intervention" results in creating a (not(non-conformist)) - a person too terrified to assert themselves in any way - which is not the same as a healthy individual growing their emotional and social maturity and learning to solve their problems in a win-win kind of way. Instead, the latter would seem to be an individual integrated with the third force and in much better shape to truly help others as well.


ref:
------------------------
_http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-bully-witch-hunt/200812/time-end-the-bully-witch-hunt
_http://www.bullies2buddies.com/

That simply sounds like the twisting of the initial concept - a ponerization if you will. It's a rather pathological take to consider that a bully is just standing up for his point of view. There is an objective difference between bullying and non-conformity - it sounds like these people are blurring that line in order to protect bullies.

 

[Buddy]

That simply sounds like the twisting of the initial concept - a ponerization if you will. It's a rather pathological take to consider that a bully is just standing up for his point of view. There is an objective difference between bullying and non-conformity - it sounds like these people are blurring that line in order to protect bullies.

That's what I thought at first. And the "non conformist" phrase is mine. There may yet be some ponerization in the approach, because the attempt at identifying the real pathology seems to be rather rare amongst the population at large. I needed to read through all the material to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think the realization is basically sound and the techniques, where weak, could be improved over time, OSIT.

And in the terms in which I am describing the issue, it is not so simple as mis-thinking that "a bully is just standing up for his point of view", because some children are being mislabeled as a bully by the really clever ones.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

That simply sounds like the twisting of the initial concept - a ponerization if you will. It's a rather pathological take to consider that a bully is just standing up for his point of view. There is an objective difference between bullying and non-conformity - it sounds like these people are blurring that line in order to protect bullies.

That's what I thought at first. And the "non conformist" phrase is mine. There may yet be some ponerization in the approach, because the attempt at identifying the real pathology seems to be rather rare amongst the population at large. I needed to read through all the material to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think the realization is basically sound and the techniques, where weak, could be improved over time, OSIT.

And in the terms in which I am describing the issue, it is not so simple as mis-thinking that "a bully is just standing up for his point of view", because some children are being mislabeled as a bully by the really clever ones.

Without the third force, ponerization always takes over. These folks really need to read some Dabrowski!

Negative or nondevelopmental adjustment means an acceptance of and conformity, without an independent critical evaluation, to the norms, customs, mores prevailing in one's social environment. Negative adjustment may also take the form of acceptance of one's actual needs and inclinations without attempts to modify and transform them creatively. This kind of adjustment is incompatible with the autonomy and authenticity of the individual. It does not yield any positive developmental results either for the individual or for the society.

Positive or developmental adjustment consists in correspondence with higher levels of development, that is to say, with a new hierarchy of values, consciously developed and subordinated to the personality ideal. While negative adjustment consists in undiscriminating adjustment to "what is" positive adjustment may be called adjustment to "what ought to be". Such adjustment is a result of the operation of the developmental instinct and implies the necessity of partial maladjustment to the prevailing social patterns as well as inner conflicts and tensions characteristic of the processes of positive disintegration (cf.). Positive adjustment attains its full, mature form only at the stage of secondary integration (cf.) in which inner conflicts decrease and fundamental agreement between personality and its ideal has been attained.

Positive maladjustment includes both partial adjustment to what is and increasing adjustment to higher levels of development. It consists of a conflict with, and a denial and rejection of those standards, patterns, attitudes, demands and expectations of one's environment which are incompatible with one's growing awareness of and loyalty to a higher scale of values. Positive maladjustment is a prerequisite to the development towards authenticity (cf.).

Negative maladjustment consists of a denial and rejection of social norms, customs, and accepted patterns of behavior, but not for the sake of a higher scale of values, but rather because of one's subordination to primitive urges and nondevelopmental, pathologically deformed structures and functions. In the extreme it takes the form of psychosis, psychopathy, and criminal activity.

 

[RyanX]

However, the bottom line is, manipulation and the general drive is STS. From what I can gather, he tells alot of truths but then he proceeds on telling the reader how they can use the truth to get what they want. He places the choice in the readers hands, i'll give you the tools and you decide what to do with it. Also from having read this, I can see that not anyone can do it, it requires people to work on themselves, to trim and get themselves in shape(physically, emotionally, intelectually), to figure themselves out, to understand there vulnerabilities to be able to be socially savvy and understand other people, it also pushes people to find value in themselves so that others can find value in them. Personally, I am torn.

luke,

I don't understand why you are torn? Are you comparing the manipulation techniques in this book to the concept of the 'Work' as described here on this forum? From what little I've read of this book from what you've posted so far, it seems like the book is concerned about changing external appearances without changing the substance of the man underneath. For instance, it says to "smile more". Well, that might be appropriate in some instances and totally inappropriate in others. On the inside one changes nothing by smiling more. It just leads to a greater disconnect between your expressions and your real feelings; hardly something that most women would consider beneficial for an enduring relationship.

I went out recently with a friend and he put a challenge down about just talking to random people but using the method in the book. What got me is all the emotions that were going through me, the fear of approach, the fear of not being liked, the fear of looking bad, all this. It seemed to me like a mine-field of doing work. What programs will come up? Why do all this different fears exist? I mean, it was like 9 tenths of the battle was against oneself.

Is this really doing the 'Work' or is this just suppressing your real feelings? Approaching strangers isn't easy, nor is it always safe. How do you know those fears you had weren't grounded somewhat in reality? I think I would have a hard time doing what you described too because in the back of my mind I would know that I'm not talking to somebody out of genuine interest, but only because of a silly bet. I would have 'fear', but only in the sense of being found out. All of the fears you describe sound like reactions of the Predator's Mind.

See, like anart said, get to know yourself, he says the only way to do this is if you step out of your comfort zone, go out there and try, meet your demons, defeat them and horn your skills. Love yourself, you have to essentially otherwise there would be no point of doing any of this. Work on yourself, it's work. So, eventhough the book essentially gives people skills that is hoped they would use to be more STS in nature interms of, all this is geared to sex, bottomline, the journey there will involve alot of work some of which is esoteric(like fighting personal demons) and aslong as someone just changes the motivation, then my take on it is that it isnt such a bad book.

Again, I think you're confusing manipulative behavior with the 'Work' here. The Work isn't about manipulating outward appearances in order to control and manipulate others. My understanding is that the Work is about gaining a mastery of one's many 'I's in order to actually DO and BE -- in the fullest sense of those words. If you're doing the Work just to weasel your way into a feeding relationship, I think might have some more Work to do there...