Psychological Projection: How We Delude Ourselves

Taken from: The Social Lifestyle

Game has often been referred to as an “art” (i.e., pick up artistry, or the art of seduction). However in recent years we see it gradually shifting into the scientific circle, as the line between art and science starts to meld together as well. While it is not a natural science in itself–unless you’re talking evolutionary biology–it can come under the umbrella of social science. The point being, there has been an increasing number of empirical evidence which supports the theories which game practitioners have been hypothesizing since the days of Mystery. Neil Strauss, David X, and the other pioneers could be referred to as the empirical scientists, taking their hypotheses and field testing it–very much unlike the “theoretical scientists” of today, who seem to form the majority of new dating coaches who seem to be popping up these days.

The reason I say this is because I was having a slightly charged but brief discussion with a few friends recently about a video by comedy team Cracked wherein one of the persons mentions that “We are creating an entire generation of Ted Mosbys who think that chasing a woman is the same thing as getting to know her” and that “(they think) that unsolicited, unreciprocated romantic gestures earn you points that will some day be traded in for sex”. I went on to do a bit of thinking and realized that people indeed do tend to delude themselves into thinking what they are doing is right. First off, I am not saying that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I have fucked up on so many occasions before even up till this day. I say and do a lot of stupid shit that turn girls off.

The difference between how I view my “methods” and how some people view theirs is that I try to follow the path of an empirical scientist (bottom-up approach) and they adopt a skewed top-down approach.

Psychological Projection

One problem that most guys have when it comes to the dating game is projecting their desires onto others. Guys tend to go for looks solely when looking for a mate, and thus they think that women care about looks only. These are the guys who work on their aesthetics and neglect every other aspect of themselves such as intellectual pursuits or actually being a better person. Then there are guys who are more feminine (I’m not using this term as a derogative) and crave deep connections, and they think that women only want to cuddle and talk about feelings. These guys then focus on being the nice guy and ignoring the other crucial half of the seduction process.

While one can argue that this is part of the filtering process, what I noticed is that these guys do not get results. And rather than actually analyzing what they lack, they merely rationalize it away. This is what I mean by a skewed top-down approach, where they have a “hypothesis” of what works and they hold so tightly to their hypothesis that they ignore evidence to the contrary–continually insisting that they are right and that circumstances are preventing their success.

The key in a good scientific hypothesis is falsifiability–one factor that seems to be missing from many people’s belief systems.

I myself do have my own system, but I do not regard it as perfect. I am constantly fine-tuning it and focusing on when it doesn’t work rather than when it does work. I have gotten quite a lot of success doing what I do, but I have also fucked up a lot more times. Take a recent encounter. After not approaching for almost a month, I finally approached a really gorgeous girl. As always, the oneitis mindset kicked in, which I constantly tried to push away. This caused me to run a totally different game. I amped up my asshole mode as a countermeasure to what I was feeling (i.e., needy) and thus it became incongruent. The girl didn’t enjoy how the conversation progressed and cut me off immediately.

Now, at the same time I was dating another girl and texting one other girl, so this wasn’t the issue of whether what I was doing was right or wrong, but whether it was right in that particular situation. Every girl is different, but people like constancy hence the common mantra of “just be yourself”. That is true to some extent. You have to communicate authentically or the girl will sense the incongruence. However, more important is whether I merely brush it off as “she is not the one for me” or whether I can learn from the experience. She seemed like a nice girl and the conversation seemed to hook during our brief conversation, so it wasn’t that she wasn’t interested. Somewhere along the way I did something wrong. So I analyzed the text and learned from it, which is what I mean by taking it as a science. Through empirical, in-the-field experience, you form hypotheses and test it and develop it until it becomes a theory. However, most people merely drift along and assume that they are right and everyone else is wrong, even though everything they are doing isn’t producing results.

A second key aspect of psychological projection is that in order to decrease cognitive tension, we tend to project attributes onto others. In terms of game, for example, a guy who thinks that “nice guy” game works and doesn’t get results, in order to decrease this tension, he 1. projects this onto every girl, that every girl likes nice guys, and 2. girls that don’t like nice guys are immature or ignorant. There is no logical basis to this other than to reduce internal dissonance. Ultimately it is exactly this mindset that will cause stagnation.

We See Not People, But Mirrors This narcissistic and solipsistic mindset exists in everyone to varying degrees. However it is dangerous when we are not aware of it. Similar to the “Spotlight Effect” , solipsism is the philosophical idea that “one’s mind is sure to exist”. This means that we view the entire world as revolving around ourselves and that everything that happens is meaningful to our life trajectory. Objective science has proven that meaning is merely created in the mind, that’s not to say our existence should therefore be futile, but the inherent meaninglessness of reality should not interfere with us creating our own subjective meaning. The problem arises when we are not aware our this egocentricity. We think that we are right and that everything serves a purpose solely in relation to us; that people act a certain way that has meaning to us specifically.

This way of looking at the world if not controlled will skewed our ability to improve ourselves. Growth requires pure objective introspection. And while that is impossible, the closest we can get is the scientific method of gathering statistical data and considering most (if not all) possibilities, especially those that are not favorable to our worldview. Not more than two years ago I was a very different person. A pure liberal and what friends would describe as a “hopeless romantic”. People who know me know will scoff at that. And even two years before that I was a devout Christian apologist and evangelist. Oh, how things have changed.

We live in a world that knows that change is the only constant but yet we glorify constancy. But remaining constant is another way of saying you have remained stagnant. The peak of human knowledge is beyond the reach of even the smartest minds or the most enlightened individuals, yet we like to think of ourselves as knowing enough of ourselves. When you admit that you don’t know anything, not even yourself, and realize that the truth is bitter (as is the red pill), then you will truly experience growth.

Introspection done imperfectly will only blind us more to our mistakes.