The Shocker writes:
one of the common criticisms with the Mystery Method is that it takes an adversarial approach to game- like two lawyers in a courtroom. You’re trying to come up with rebuttals based on what she says and what she does. It’s good for beginners since they can detach their identity from their performance (and suffer no ego consequences when they fail), but it’s really not that great of an approach to social interaction overall. Rock solid inner game always wins because you aren’t making assumptions about your target, you’re more agile and dynamic since it’s authentic, and ultimately is the image you’re trying to impress through Mystery’s scripts anyways. Women can tell the difference. [Ed: More precisely, women can *feel* the difference between bad game and good game.]
Chateau Heartiste is popular with inner-game types because it looks at the rules of attraction from a very high level. We’re not really looking for techniques here because we don’t need them – just a deeper understanding of the laws and strategies at play. It’s the difference between practicing chess openings from a book versus reading about game theory. Yale vs ITT Tech.
All seduction is, in a sense, adversarial. It has to be, considering that men’s and women’s reproductive goals are at odds. But it is the adversarial nature of courtship that electrifies women’s libidos. A budding seduction that lacks this tension will wither on the vine. It’s evolutionarily preordained that women will swoon for sharply charged flirty exchanges, and crumple into boredom under an onslaught of dull agreeableness.
That said, it’s true that game greenhorns too easily fall into a lawyerly pattern of badgering the witness and courtroom objections. This isn’t a fault of the specific game tactics so much as it is a problem of overthinking one’s next move at the expense of free-form conversational adaptability. Men who first take on the learning of game tend to think in rigid blocks of discrete information — must do this now, then follow up with this — instead of the better mode of thinking in fluid cascades of themes: i’ll do this, unless this other move is better. What results from thinking like the former is a man who fumbles when a woman, for example, shit tests at the “wrong” time, and he flails in his misguided effort to steer the conversation back to where he was in control.
For the beginner, it’s almost more effective to think actively about what *not to do*, than what to do. Avoiding common beta pitfalls will get you farther as a newbie than trying to perfectly apply all the little details of the Attraction-Comfort-Seduction sequence to targets of interest. As you progress, you can start to think more in terms of tightening your game instead of avoiding anti-game missteps, because at that stage you should have enough experience with women under your belt (heh) that you can, one, predict with uncanny accuracy how a woman will react to a given scenario and, two, shift on the fly.
Mystery did the world a service by breaking down the trajectory of a successful seduction and female attraction mechanisms into their component parts. The nature of making a (relatively) complex subject understandable for the masses naturally ensures that imitators and acolytes will miss the nuance. Nuance comes with practice, so don’t sweat it at first. The Mystery Method blueprint is just that — a blueprint around which to erect a work of pickup art. Don’t try to jam every preposition or unexpected riposte into its framework. Exigency happens.