Post: #1

Scientists review "The Game" and weigh its claims against known research in Social Sciences.

Among unsupported reccomendations are peacocking and negging

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uplo...899909.pdf


In conclusion, it would seem clear that there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community. The three reputed phases of courtship, Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction, are supported by a significant and steadily growing literature based in physiological, social and evolutionary psychology research. Men and women have evolved opposing sexual strategies, often leading to a conflict of interests, creating significant discord and confusion with respect to mate selection (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Given the frustration and confusion many singles currently experience in the dating marketplace, this knowledge could be an important aid to couples reducing conflict, frustration and finding fulfilling relationships.

In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, one particular strategy known as “peacocking,” (in dubious reference to Zahavi’s (1975) handicap principle) involves wearing very ostentatious clothing specifically designed to exploit evolved cues for what women find attractive (Markovik, 2007). Although research has shown that women generally find social status attractive in men (Buss, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), thus far there is no direct evidence in support of this particular behavior. A similar strategy, known as “negging”, has been claimed to increase a male’s attractiveness by demonstrating he has high standards (Markovik, 2007). For example, a male might exclaim, Wow, those are great fingernails! Are they real? Oh, no? Well, they still look nice. Consistent with this argument, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) have shown that men who appear to have high standards are considered more attractive than males who do not; nevertheless, there is currently no direct evidence that “negging” is universally effective. An important area for future research would be to more closely analyze a broader spectrum of community literature and determine the scientific veracity of unsubstantiated claims.

Post: #2

To study negging, it needs to be understood that it's a highly contextual concept and they will need to account for female conceit relative to the strength of the neg. "Neg = high standard" seems like an oversimplification. Don't hold your breath on scientific research supporting negs, except obliquely.

Peacocking has some challenges, too. For example, what counts as a positive difference? If mystery-style peacocking makes you more noticeable in a crowd and gives you a conversation-starting prop, that may be beneficial to the overall process in a particular environment(eg a nightclub), even if women wouldn't actually rate you more attractive.

Regardless, it's hard to deny that appearance, clothing, and status symbols at least have some effect. I expect research on this, even if Mystery's specific concept of "peacocking" isn't the focus. If anything, there will probably be a lot more effort spent researching this angle than is really worthwhile.

Post: #3

Scientists didn't women could have orgasms till the early 90s. They still think the foreskin plays no role in sex. I wouldn't be surprised if they're still waiting for a peer-reviewed study to decide their own sexual orientation.

Post: #4

(12-02-2013 07:05 PM)Blaster Wrote:  To study negging, it needs to be understood that it's a highly contextual concept and they will need to account for female conceit relative to the strength of the neg. "Neg = high standard" seems like an oversimplification. Don't hold your breath on scientific research supporting negs, except obliquely.

Science already recognises the efficacy of the neg.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/09/1...neg-works/

Post: #5

(12-02-2013 07:05 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Regardless, it's hard to deny that appearance, clothing, and status symbols at least have some effect. I expect research on this, even if Mystery's specific concept of "peacocking" isn't the focus. If anything, there will probably be a lot more effort spent researching this angle than is really worthwhile.

Thing is, we have hundreds of people here who have offered themselves up as real life guinea pigs for game.

Community standards here probably represent, overall, a good facsimile of "what works".

And I think just about no one here peacocks in the sense of dressing up like Mystery used to. The more common form is just suiting up, or dressing well regardless. Standing out for looking good has clearly won out over standing out for looking outlandish. Pretty much the same concept, just a different execution thereof.

Maybe looking outlandish could get you some attention over looking frumpy and boring, but as far as best practices go, no one would be surprised to find a study showing men in suits are rated as more attractive than the same men dressed as Mystery or the Average Joe.

Post: #6

(12-02-2013 08:41 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  And I think just about no one here peacocks in the sense of dressing up like Mystery used to. The more common form is just suiting up, or dressing well regardless. Standing out for looking good has clearly won out over standing out for looking outlandish. Pretty much the same concept, just a different execution thereof.

Maybe looking outlandish could get you some attention over looking frumpy and boring, but as far as best practices go, no one would be surprised to find a study showing men in suits are rated as more attractive than the same men dressed as Mystery or the Average Joe.

Interesting to note how "The G Manifesto Method" outlasted "The Mystery Method".

Post: #7

(12-02-2013 10:32 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Interesting to note how "The G Manifesto Method" outlasted "The Mystery Method".

Custom Suits may even be cheaper than Mystery's getups. Wouldn't be surprised if platform boots are more expensive than nice shoes.

Post: #8

(12-02-2013 07:47 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Scientists didn't women could have orgasms till the early 90s. They still think the foreskin plays no role in sex.

What they think and what they profess to know are two different things when it comes to scientists.

Post: #9

If you live it, who cares what dorks in white coats have to say about game?

Post: #10

Quote:Pretty much the same concept, just a different execution thereof.

Mystery has this theory that the outlandish stuff signals sexuality. If there's no obvious point to it, and it's not conforming, then it must be signaling sexual intent. That is slightly different from suiting up, although there is clearly a similar effect and some obvious things (like not wearing a crew neck undershirt) clearly send sexual signals. Suiting up seems a bit more about conveying taste, style, status, and masculinity.

And yeah for most people suit game > aviator goggles.

Post: #11

(12-02-2013 10:51 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  If you live it, who cares what dorks in white coats have to say about game?

Curiosity. Appreciation of knowledge in general. That's about it.

Post: #12

(12-02-2013 10:49 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 10:32 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Interesting to note how "The G Manifesto Method" outlasted "The Mystery Method".

Custom Suits may even be cheaper than Mystery's getups. Wouldn't be surprised if platform boots are more expensive than nice shoes.

Hell, I would have no idea.

Post: #13

Quote:Peacocking has some challenges, too. For example, what counts as a positive difference? If mystery-style peacocking makes you more noticeable in a crowd and gives you a conversation-starting prop, that may be beneficial to the overall process in a particular environment(eg a nightclub), even if women wouldn't actually rate you more attractive.

Mystery style peacocking I would call pseudo-celebrity game. Acting "as if" you are unknown celebrity in order to stimulate female attraction. I think it's kind of lame and douchey personally. But hey whatever gets you laid.

Post: #14

I find it hilarious that they are citing Mystery using the APA format.

By the way, Mystery is still using (at least assuming form his Facebook photos) the same Hot Topic clothes that he was wearing back in 2006.

G´s socks are more expensive than his whole outfit.

Post: #15

(12-02-2013 06:29 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community.

Scientists have done psychological research about Game?!?!?

Research confirms that Game works!!!

I would like to become a "guinea pig" for this research.

I am currently doing my own scientific study..

Can a 38 Year Old Man Bang 19 year old Girls?

-Early evidence confirms that the answer is yes, if he can control certain environmental and social factors

*Research, experimentation, development, and data collecting are on-going.

(12-02-2013 10:32 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Interesting to note how "The G Manifesto Method" outlasted "The Mystery Method".

Kind of crazy, right?

Wait, actually, it's not crazy at all.

It makes perfect sense.