A 'nice' man only knows how to be agreeable. He doesn't know how to challenge women and he can't or won't set the lead. And he filters everything he says through the belief that women are fragile little flowers who need to handled with OH so much care lest they be broken. YUUCH. One more thing: women don't trust his communication because he just won't dare say anything that might offend them. Now a pleasant man is something quite different: pleasant is power, held in proper restraint and exercised with precision and elegance. A pleasant man will speak his mind, set the lead, but he also knows how to listen and show the proper degree of interest and respect. He may put himself first, but he also genuinely cares for and cares about his woman (or women). They are of great importance to him as long as they treat him right and work within the rules that he has made very clear. Most important: his world is his own. He never, NEVER makes the WOMAN his world, around which he orbits. He does allow her to come into his world and occasionally even be at the center WITH him. Ross Jeffries Ross Jeffries' Persuasion/Seduction Newsletters, September 20, 2006
This contrast of nice against pleasant reminded me of the contrast between the dependent Peter Keating and the independent Howard Roark. It also reminded me of Ayn Rand's view of romantic love with the masculine hero and the feminine hero worshipper. I thought it would make good grist for discussion.
I'll go out on a limb here, and be the first woman to say that THIS is the kind of man I'd like to meet. Where I'm from we call that kind of man a Southern Gentleman, and he is damn near extinct.
Now, I could also change that statement slightly and make it from the female perspective and be just as happy with it. Any self-respecting woman, in my mind, should uphold these exact same actions towards her man (or men haha).
This is an interesting insight into why the old adage "Nice guys don't get the girl" seems to ring true. Many misinterpret this to mean that women illogically want a man that will push her around (physically or mentally) and are only interested in "jerks". What they don't realize is that these "jerks" are presenting themselves as "Alpha" men; men who aren't pushovers, who won't kowtow to a woman to please her and who goes out and gets what he wants. To a man who treats women as "fragile" and changes his self to fit what he thinks a woman wants, this behavior seems harsh and overly abrasive and perhaps even abusive. I think they are mistaken. Using the idea of a "southern gentleman", I think that most women would respect any man who would not put up with a whiny, manipulative woman and would be willing to say to her pleadings, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
After reading my post above, I don't wish for anyone to misunderstand my intent. In the last sentence, I of course did not mean to convey the idea that all women are whiny or manipulative. In fact, those who are will find themselves lonely rather quickly, since any self-respecting man will quickly remove such an annoying and unflattering influence from their lives.
Anyway, I researched Mr. Jeffries on the net, and on his website, he talks about using NLP to seduce a woman. What are your thoughts on this? I, for one, think if you follow the advise in the original quote, you won't need to resort to any sort of trickery (of speech or deed) to seduce a woman.
Throughout the manual, Ross discusses the ruling value of purpose when discussing how one should communicate. Hence, having an explicit purpose of simply being "nice" to a woman will lead a man to considerably different behaviors than if he has the explicit purpose of inducing states of hot, passionate, sexual excitement in her. So Ross shares with Objectivists a deep appreciation of explicit purpose in all actions. Although he does not expressly state the virtue of productiveness as those behaviors that most effectively achieve the stated purpose of communication, clearly the use of embedded commands will most productively achieve the purpose of state induction.
This is an interesting insight into why the old adage "Nice guys don't get the girl" seems to ring true. Many misinterpret this to mean that women illogically want a man that will push her around (physically or mentally) and are only interested in "jerks".
The key is that jerks do not supplicate. They are not pushovers. Women become bored with easy men very quickly.
I think that most women would respect any man who would not put up with a whiny, manipulative woman and would be willing to say to her pleadings, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
For many women, these are what Ross Jeffries would call "shit tests." A shit test is basically a test to see what a man will put up with, what he will tolerate. Common shit tests include not returning phone calls, breaking appointments, etc. How a man responds to these is CRITICAL. She will LJBF the "nice guy."
LJBF=Let's Just Be Friends.
In fact, those who are will find themselves lonely rather quickly, since any self-respecting man will quickly remove such an annoying and unflattering influence from their lives.
Such women will find themselves with men who will tolerate this kind of abuse. Self-respect is something they don't have.
he talks about using NLP to seduce a woman.
There is much more to it than that.
if you follow the advise in the original quote, you won't need to resort to any sort of trickery
It depends a great deal on what you call trickery. A lot of it is working on your "inner game." A great deal of it is non-verbal.
All problems can be approached scientifically. Ross Jeffries has created a new science. Many men have benefitted from his teachings.
So, your saying that using the techniques in NLP to get a woman you are interested in into a state of arousal quickly is being as productive with your language/actions as possible, and that this is a good thing. I can see that. I (perhaps mistakenly) tied NLP with hypnosis and the (again, perhaps mistaken) notion that you are creating an unnatural, unconscious, and unwanted reaction in the woman. However, it's all a game, and women are fully aware of that. I think it's probably a bit naive on my part to think that playing the game and using certain techniques discovered recently (past 30 years or so) is cheating and "unfair" to them. It's akin to the "pick-up line".
Perhaps it's a bit strong to say Ross has created a new science. I see that he has used several techniques gleaned from other sciences (psychology, anthropology) towards the approach of attracting women. And I agree, if your "inner game" is not up to par, than no matter how much you use "weasel phrases" or "embedded commands", your chances of successfully attracting a woman are lessened. That is why I think the quote Luke pulled out is so a gem. It goes to the heart of the mentality a man should have in attracting a woman.
I'm curious how women feel about the idea of guys using NLP to create attraction in them. If you knew a guy was using these techniques on you during an interaction, would that change your perception of him? Do you think you would still feel attracted to him (supposing it was working already)?
A 'nice' WOMAN only knows how to be agreeable. SHE doesn't know how to challenge MEN and SHE can't or won't set the lead. And SHE filters everything SHE says through the belief that MEN WANT fragile little flowers who need to handled with oh so much care lest they be broken. One more thing: MEN don't trust HER communication because SHE just won't dare say anything that might GIVE AWAY WHAT SHE REALLY WANTS. Now a pleasant WOMAN is something quite different: pleasant is power, held in proper restraint and exercised with precision and elegance. A pleasant WOMAN will speak HER mind, set the lead, but SHE also knows how to listen and show the proper degree of interest and respect. SHE may put HERself first, but SHE also genuinely cares for and cares about HER MAN(or MEN). They are of great importance to HER as long as they treat HER right and work within the rules that SHE has made very clear. Most important: HER world is HER own. SHE never makes the MAN HER world, around which SHE orbits. SHE does allow HIM to come into HER world and occasionally even be at the center with HER.
In a nutshell, NLP (or NeuroLinguistic Programming) is a psychological technique of using "embedded commands" to get another person to think or act in a certain desired way. For example, if I were to say (and it works much better in person, I'm sure) "Don't think of an elephant", what happens? You immediately think of an elephant, right? That's because the command "think of an elephant" is found in the sentence. It doesn't matter that I said NOT to think of the elephant. In a more subtle way, NLP might look (sound) like this: "I don't want you to think that you have to like me." Now, written down, this might seem pretty innocuous. But what NLP takes advantage of is that a command is spoken (at least in English) with a downward inflection of the voice at the end of the command. So, instead of saying "I don't want you to think that you have to like me" with a flat voice, you would slightly change the way you say the embedded command "you have to like me". Saying it just a bit slower than the rest of the sentence and with a downward inflection, puts the idea of needing to like me in your mind.
The link that Luke provided in his earlier post is a good overview of NLP. Also, if your confused on what a downward inflection might be, try this: say the following two sentences out loud with the correct emotion indicated. "Will you take out the garbage?" (questioning) "Take out the garbage." (demanding).
In a way, NLP uses commands a bit different than a regular command, however. Instead of a very strong command, it is a bit more subtle. It's more like stating a fact, than telling them what to do. Hope that helped a little.
To add to Bauer's fine summary, I invite you to notice how commercials often use the down turn in tonality when asking questions. I also invite you to notice how I just used an embedded command twice in this post thus far. Do you feel yourself incredibly motivated to learn more about NLP! Whoops, there came my third one.
I summarized a book on NLP called Unlimited Power by Anthony Robbins at
Chapter VII on mental syntax is one of my favorites and elucidates on what others here have discussed as the "inner game" of any skill. In fact, you can purchase books like The Inner Game of Golf and The Inner Game of Tennis that talk all about this subject as applied to those skills. Replacing bad mental habits with good ones can prove the biggest challenge and NLP can prove a powerful tool in this regard.
A word of caution: Many NLP practitioners tend toward the mystical side and mix Zen and other gobbledygook with otherwise valid principles. The Inner Game books do this. Use Objectivism to filter the nonsense from the good parts and you will do fine.
People go into different levels of trance states. Driving and reading are trance states, to a certain degree. You go into a trance state anytime that you focus on something.
Here's a case in point of me hypnotizing Tony, a guy I worked with. I was on travel job and had the misfortune of sharing a rental car with him. Tony constantly complained about the hotel and just about all hotels he had stayed in on previous jobs.
There was one hotel that Tony liked, and I got him talking about it. His face started to light up, and his eyes shined. I touched his shoulder and held it for a few seconds. This created an "anchor."
The next time Tony started to complain, I touched him in the same place. He stopped complaining immediately and never complained again about hotels for the rest of the week.
I suppose an Objectivist would say that I should have tried to reason with him. What would that have accomplished? Hypnotizing him was more fun and more effective.
Chris, you made a good decision with Tony. Both you and he benefitted from the anchoring. I have no moral issue with using such alternative methods when reason clearly will not work. Since you did not initiate physical force or fraud -- I assume he did not mind your touching him -- clearly you employed a morally acceptable method to deal with him. You could even argue that his unwelcome griping trespassed onto your eardrums if you want to look for more justification for your actions.
This NLP stuff reminds me [buy me a beer] of Kevin Neelan on Saturday Night Live [hot sex] doing his "Subliminal Man" character [give me twenty bucks]. I think I read about NLP in that new book "How to Manipulate People and Win Friends".
I partly share your concern about whether using NLP is honest or not. In the cases where reason is not very likely to ever succeed, then I don't have a problem. However, in the case of attracting someone in a romantic way towards you, it seems a bit nefarious. I suppose that you could always be honest if confronted with the question, "Are you trying to seduce me?" and with your best smile, say "Absolutely!" Honesty in that manner will more than likely be refreshing. And if you've built up enough rapport, I would bet your chances of a second meeting would be rather high.
I'm sitting on the fence still in using NLP for seduction. And it's one of those white picket fences, with sharp points poking me in some not-so-pleasant places. I need to find the best way to get off. Should we use some NLP in the other Forums to get some ladies opinions on this? ;)p
Bauer, if you act in a basically honest way about your character and your sense of genuine attraction toward your target woman, please tell me in what way the NLP rapport techniques bring harm to anyone. Please understand that these techniques simply allow men to use their tool of survival, reason, to understand and then master the nature of human communication. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed," as the Francis Bacon saying goes. Men who use NLP for seduction simply recognize the basic fact that A is A and that a woman has a specific nature and no other. So if they hope ever to get laid, much less get into a meaningful romance, they had jolly well better learn all they can about how women communicate inside and outside their souls. They also need to understand their own communication in the same way, only more so.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]