myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[SargeMaximus]

Sanity would be for me to get back to posting journal entries, but, since I'm obviously feeling a little insane...

Seriously, just skip the parts that aren't relevant to you (the reader).

Planning on it.

Kind of, lol.

Yes I can agree with that.

DMSI should allow us to do both.

Maybe, maybe not. Ok, two new analogies. They may help you to see what I've been saying. Seducers and seduced are like two different-but-complementary puzzle pieces (shape 1 and shape 2) that fit together well with each other, but are pieces that fit awkwardly when you have two "1" pieces (which dissolves the need for a puzzle) or two "2" pieces (that can never seem to touch each other). When the situation calls for you to be 1 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 1), it's good to know how to be 1. When the situation calls for you to be 2 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 2), it's good to know how to be 2. (Like how it's good to study English for English class and Latin for Latin class without mixing them up.) Similar goals, but different, self-contained ways of achieving them.

I find that studying both separately works well; you get really good at learning how to be shape 1 (English) and really good at learning to be shape 2 (Latin). When you learn these contrasting shapes together in a muddled mess (English and Latin in the same class, with no distinction over which is which), you end up becoming shape 3, a messy mixture of both shapes 1 and 2 (Latinglish?), which as far as I can tell, confuses anyone who expects only 1 or 2 (only English or only Latin). And creates unnecessary stalemate and communication problems for both of you, as well as causing confusion for you because you don't know where one shape/language ends or begins. When a seducer woman (shape 1) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 2). When a seduced woman (shape 2) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 1). So, because you insisted on learning to be shape 3 (both shape 1 and shape 2 merged), instead of learning to be shape 1 really well and learning to be shape 2 really well, you don't know how to be only 1 or only 2, just shape 3.

I totally understand that you want an all-in-one sub and why you might wish that one sub could do everything. But between all-in-one and better results, I'd opt for better results. If it were actually an idea that stood a chance of working, then, yes, I'd see the advantage. I'm just saying that I think, based on my understanding of it (which may be wrong, as I'm not a Latinglish teacher), that it will produce sub-par results to try to learn two separate and opposing techniques merged into one self-cancelling mess instead of focused separately. Otherwise, to recall my boat/plane example from two days ago, I may start looking for wings on my boat and also be annoyed that I'm not getting her into the air.

I'm advocating "study both, separately" as opposed to "study both, muddled so that you can't tell which is which."

Ahhhhh :idea: I see.

Yes ok, this makes sense. And I would be all for a sub that gets the user to seduce, if those are the only 2 options, and if it really works that way.

There is some concern that DMSI only caters to women who already want you based on whatever limited information they have at the present time.

Generally, people approach for more info, not less. As far as I can tell, DMSI instructs us to encourage (with openness and approachability, not heat-seeking missiles) those-who-could-want-the-user to consider wanting the user and those-who-do-want-the-user to act on it.

If there isn't any compatibility, shoving someone at the user who finds the user repulsive isn't destined for a great result. For example: I once courted a woman into a relationship, a woman who actively hated me from the start. She wanted the relationship to last forever, but she also never stopped hating me for the entire relationship. That's like having an enemy who wants to be attached at the hip. The salesman in me saw success, while the product in me got abused. Ignoring everything-but-the-sale to make a sale works out better when you're not also the product being sold.

I agree with the bold.

As for the rest, it sounds awesome! (not the abused part, but I'm hoping you mean metaphorically abused and not physically or emotionally)

I argue that DMSI should not strip the user of that kind of experience or ability. Why? Because you learned a valuable lesson.

I disagree.

If you provide the right information, people go from disinterested person, to raving customer chasing you down the street after you've left their house (true story/field tested).

Give someone the reason to buy, then stop pushing the product, they WILL do the rest.

I'm seeing the confusion, I think. Two points:

1. Humans tend to be less interchangeable and ubiquitous than products. From what I can tell, you seem to believe that, if the product (you) is well-suited for one woman, it's well-suited for all women, if only they knew what that first woman knew. But that's not how attraction or taste works. Example: I find woman A to be a 10. You find woman A to be a 3. By your "not enough info" principle, woman A can convince you that she's a 10 because I've proven that she's a 10 to me, so you must just not have enough info. But I find her to be a 10 because my needs and values differ from yours, not solely because I know more about her than you do. If what sells me on her is your deal-breaker, more info isn't going to help and may even repel you more.

Aha! And I see some erroneous thinking on your part:

- Attraction doesn't work the same for women as it does for men. While men are primarily visual, women are more "character" or "inner game" based.

I had a girl crushing on me a while ago (years ago, back when I was doing AM 6) and she wore glasses, but sometimes she didn't.

I told her one day, in passing, that I thought she looked better without the glasses.

She never wore them around me again.

In much the same way, we men can withhold things we know turns a girl off. That's all I'm saying.

You seem to believe that you are who you are and you can't change that. I strongly disagree with this. I've changed much in my life (for the better, I hope) so I do not believe that the human is a static product that does not change, but can and does change.

I'm not saying we should change for one girl, but I am saying we should be able to not shoot ourselves in the foot.

If talking about our careers drives women away, why insist on talking about our careers when you can just as easily (and without personal compromise) talk about things she actually enjoys talking with you about?

2. You seem to be framing "a woman making a physical move" as "a response to [your] sales pitch", but, from what I've seen, she's more likely to consider a "first physical move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. Unless you're selling her into the idea of selling to you (equate that to you selling your D2D customer into selling you their sofa when they have no interest in getting rid of it -- NOT her being a rabidly-interested buyer), she's less likely to classify a first move as appropriate. Because she's not the salesman there, and, to her, the first move is a seller's move, and the second move (rabid as it may be) is a buyer's move. Yes, I've seen people break character before, but rarely. She's more likely to expect you to continue leading the dance that you've been leading than to grab your arm, twirl you around, and dip you. But she'll usually take it as read that she should twirl and dip you if she's leading. Otherwise, it's like you asking, "I'm leading, so why aren't you dipping me?"

Eh, I see where you're coming from but it's not that simple.

Selling can be an idea as much as a product. Who sells the idea to buy the product? The salesman? Maybe. But what if the customer finds something out about the product from a friend and then decides to buy the product? Now who "sold" it to them? The customer sold it to themselves!

In the book "Influence" Robert Cialdini talks about how ideas can become self-perpetuated and part of a persons identity even after another person has suggested it to them. Inception kind of shit.

Since that can (and does) happen, I think it's more complicated than you've laid out here.

Ok. Well, I meant that you can get a single woman regardless of the rejections.

In sales I learned "no" simply means "I don't have enough information yet". That includes information about other products (in this case, other men she'd say yes to).

But the theory is: if you are the kind of guy she wants and you haven't shown her that, she will reject you until she finds out.

And if you're the not kind of guy that she wants, but keep ignoring her rejections anyway? Or if you've backslid and shown her that, where you once seemed like the kind of guy that she wants, you have since revealed yourself not to be the kind of guy that she wants? People can permanently lose interest at any stage in a relationship.

Yeah they can.

Example:

Gold digger babe.

Finds out your poor. And you'll never amount to anything because you have no rich friends or family. No training, no nothing. NMio ambitions either.

Then you win the lottery.

Gold digger babe wants you again.

Same thing can happen with anything.

Humanitarian babe:

Really wants a guy who supports the local homeless shelter. You don't, so you're out.

Then one day you have a change of heart, your friend becomes homeless (or you do) so you end up supporting the homeless shelter.

Bing bang boom she wants you (or is considering) you again.

Those are very simple and stupid examples but you get my point I hope which is that people aren't set in stone, they can change, and women can change their minds based on those changes too.

There's usually a point when people eventually accept no as an answer. Hitting a customer's doorstep daily for a month or a year could be considered harassment, even before you consider any sexual analogues.

Lol, I've gone to the same house multiple times (I try not to, because I agree). However I've gotten apps from people who initially slammed the door in my face. Wonder how...

Interesting. And now you got me thinking we're talking about the same thing, because this sounds exactly like what I'd like DMSI to train users to be able to do.

It actually sounds more to me like you're trying to borrow a refrigerator to see if you can turn it into a freezer. But I could be wrong.

Most fridges have a built-in freezer.

The difference is:

Have you done that and saw a girl you wanted and gotten HER?

Have I been within visual range of a woman that I'd found attractive and experienced her coming up to me? Yes. Because that's true of every attractive (and unattractive) woman who comes up to me. She tends not to approach me if she can't see me. Happens even when I haven't noticed that she's in the room. Happens even when I don't want her. And it also doesn't happen too.

And have you been able to do this repeatedly with predictable outcomes?

You seem to be looking for 100% solutions again. And predictable strangers and controlled outcomes. I can't even predict if there will be one woman that I find attractive in the room/building (no matter who does the approaching), let alone if she'll want me.

Interesting. You seem to have a "it's fate" mentality.

Dropping a fishing line in the water does not guarantee a fish will bite it, no matter how many worms or lures you use. But people still fish. And catch absolutely delicious ones. And throw back what they don't want. Whereas you seem to want a fishing rod that, when calibrated to Moby Dick, will cause Moby Dick and only Moby Dick, even if Moby Dick isn't in the lake, to swim to you, commit suicide, and cook itself. That's an intriguing goal, but, no, that's not what I'm doing. Partly because I don't (yet?) know of any logistical process that will culminate in that result.

Well, why use a fishing rod when you can use one of those boats that drags a net along the bottom?

Then you have ALL the fish, and the one you wanted is in there too. Once they're on the deck, you just grab it.

Moby Dick lol. No.

(And I'd have chosen an edible famous fish, rather than a whale, if I could've come up with one. Really slim pickings on that one.)

If so, then that is seduction to me.

I seduced a woman by being visible in public? Lots of people see me when I'm in public. That's sort of the definition of being in public.

I guess what I'm looking for DMSI to do is a hybrid of the two.

... which would be great if there weren't someone else in the room with you that you should hopefully be trying not to confuse. I've never gotten a girl to initiate by confusing her.

(Oddly, I have gotten them to do so by being confused, but that's neither here nor there.)

Like I said: I've done it in sales. And unless ypou're suggesting that people change their psychology during a sales call, the same principles should (IMO/in theory) work for both.

If the person that you're calling tries to sell you their product in the middle of your own sales pitch, I'm guessing that the psychology says that they wanted to sell you something because you're a person and because they're selling something to everyone.

No because I'm talking about selling my product, but THEY sold it to themselves based on the information I gave them. I don't do a lot of talking in sales. And as most great influencers agree, you can't get anyone to do anything. It has to be their idea.

An eager buyer and an eager seller are two different things. As I'd said earlier, from what I've observed, people generally see "the first move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. If you've been trying to sell them you, they're usually more inclined to let you finish your sales pitch than to interrupt and start selling themselves (a product other than what you're selling!) to you. They're not unable to do this, but it appears to be uncommon for them to do so. From what I've observed.

I see what you're saying. They wouldn't sell me their own product when I'm selling them mine.

So then I think I understand where the confusion has been in the "who is selling what".

Ok, so for me, and the way I'd like to see DMSI work:

- User is the product
- The way that product is "sold" is based on indirect observations from the buyer (woman) and careful calibration from the product (i.e. only showing the features the buyer is interested in. As an extreme example to prove I'm not talking about being "fake" or manipulating: we all take shits. But does the girl need to see us taking a shit? Should we show her our shit? No, that's ridiculous and disgusting. But it's natural! And an argument could be made for "it's genuine"! lol (remember, this is an EXTREME example to prove a point) So, in exactly the same way, some aspects of our personality may be repulsive, so instead of show them to the girl, keep them where they belong, elsewhere)

- When the buyer sees what they like, they WILL buy, even if that means making the first move.

So that's as best I can describe it.

People make the first move to buy all the time. When's the last time you bought something on impulse in the store without a salesman telling you all about the product?

Hope that clears everything up.

Glad you stuck with me through all this, and clarified some things. You've given me much to think about and helped me refine my communication and figure out what I'm really getting at, so cheers!