Sabermetric Game

The metaphor is a powerful tool, allowing us to glean insight from unrelated fields. As PUAs we learn lessons from warfare, from sports, from game theory, from psychology, from business, from the animal kingdom. But this expansive set of influences doesn't immunize the discipline from stagnation.

I'm going to drop some background information into the block quote - if you're just looking for tactics and advice, feel free to skip it. But if you're new to the school of thought, or enjoy thinking about the art of attraction, then dig in.

Backing up for a moment for the neophytes - proper game is science in theory and art in practice. Situations are studied and plans of action are generated and this process can take hours (days, weeks, months) of exhaustive logical extrapolation. Then, when presented with the right situation, we spring into action, controlling tone and volume, body positioning, word choice, joke timing, eye contact.

When we start out, yes, the goal of this is to get the girls we like to sleep with us. But along the way, it becomes clear that being debonair (not acting debonair, actually incorporating that into our identity) is riotous fun. It's not about sex anymore, it's about attraction.

Game is easier to study without the distraction of wanting sex. The drive to 'close' (getting a number, a kiss, or an invitation into bed) often leads to poor choices. Better understanding comes from studying the attraction, not the close.

I believe that quality people seek equals, and seek fulfilling relationships and experiences (of which the duration and intensity are entirely up to the participants). And there are few feelings better than being appreciated for who you are, rather than a person you are pretending to be. To use a game term, it reduces your own cognitive dissonance, and lets you play the role of a natural (someone who can pick-up effortlessly, who compels attention).

And this is where we turn to baseball and Bill James.

Bill James is a name you might know if you follow baseball closely (or if you're a Red Sox fan). James began writing freelance articles on baseball in the 1970's and eventually began to conduct independent advanced statistical research. He started self-publishing the Bill James Abstract in 1977, inventing new statistics and measurements as he wrote.

At the time, the most important statistics in baseball for hitters were batting average, RBI and home runs. James, and other researchers and writers, helped us discover new (and in some cases, better) metrics for measuring individual performance, such as win shares, or runs created. Even simpler advanced stats such as OPS (which adds on-base percentage and slugging percentage together) give us a better picture of what is happening on the field.

These new devices were revolutionary and still face opposition to this day from traditionalists, but they illuminate the game in brilliant ways and allow us to understand how individual pieces interact, rather than try to explain baseball through hunches and blind intuition.

Game (while significantly more sophisticated than the normal dating world) is still in its adolescence. We live in the world where thinkers like James have not yet made their mark, where most PUAs are dogmatic, and where we cling to crude tools because we fear for the time when we had none.

The self-limiting view seen in baseball traditionalists is alive and well in game - I would consider it a dominant view. It focuses on two tactics above all else: the neg and AMOGing. By doing so, we guarantee that we will miss opportunities, and build a worldview that makes pick-up a zero-sum, antagonistic exchange.

The tools I see missing in the field, and misunderstood by the community are social proof and framing. Ignore these at your own peril, because when properly understood, they are far more powerful that anything else.

In fact, framing and social proof are sort of the same thing, when viewed from the proper angle. If you can control how situations are interpreted and understood by everyone involved (framing) you can control how other people feel about you (social proof).

At times, Game approaches sorcery and myth - it can appear to cast a spell over people. The most mystical term in all of game is aura (interestingly, the site even says that it is "difficult to explain in words"). I've read of descriptions of aura, seen it in the field, basked in it more than a few times, but I've never met anyone who could explain what it is or how to reach it. Which is stunning.
Men know that there is a way to reach a state in which any girl is close-able. Men know that we can feel like gods and live out our fantasies. Men have seen it, and write up accounts of it in books and on websites. And they never think to break it down and make it repeatable.

Our failure to explain aura is predictable, if you study Game with a critical eye. Like so many other fields, we are at the mercy of our constructs, our framing, and we have placed aura outside of our traditional understanding. But I think that by calling aura by another name, we can begin to comprehend it.

Aura is Frame Anchored Social Proof (FASP).

Game is nothing more than observing how people respond to your behavior and adapting it in the aim of making them like you better. You frame your actions and words in order to influence their opinions of you, often in relation to other people.

Social Proof is viewed strictly in terms of props, pivots, AMOGs - all relative terms. Cialdini introduced the term as evidence that can compel conformity in others (if one pretty girl is with you, then other pretty girls know it's rational behavior). But Social Proof can be generated without a pretty wingwoman, without a Porsche, without ripped abs (all things that indicate you are desirable).

We take in massive amounts of social data every day, since birth. Fiction is even more potent than everyday occurrences, eliminating the humdrum and only showing the important moments and interactions. That data gives us hundreds (if not thousands) or heuristics, some unique, and some shared almost culture-wide.

I'll give you one right now. No matter how attractive a person might be, if you caught them in public picking their nose and wiping it on their clothes, their suitability as a mate would take a terrible blow.

Another one. Two men, both considered attractive, are in an argument. A challenges B to a fight, and B attacks him. Both are injured in the fight, though A is left standing. A may be viewed as more attractive by some (because he won a fight) but less by others (he started a fight he might have lost, he was impulsive, he gave into violence and exposes himself and others to risk). B obviously loses statute with most people, though he may gain sympathy from some.

One more, almost identical to the last. Two men, both considered attractive, are in an argument. A challenges B to a fight, and B refuses, disdaining A. In this case, B has a huge gain in stature (rigidly defines terms and stands by them, even under threat of violence) and A loses more stature than B in the previous example.

When you understand enough of these rules and elements, you can channel them to make yourself attractive (or unattractive); you can social proof yourself.

That is Frame Anchored Social Proof (FASP), using your verbal, tonal and physical framing to play off the social framework that underlies every interaction within a culture.

The meaning of the sister term, Environment Anchored Social Proof (EASP), should be obvious - social proof driven by outside elements. When anyone else in the community refers to Social Proof, what they mean is EASP.

We'll be looking at FASP a lot on this site, since it represents a break from conventional wisdom. But for the time being, just go forward knowing that you now have a tool that the gurus of the field don't know (or won't tell you) about.