non pua context
k dog, as im sure ur aware everything we do in a given social interaction is geared to elicit a certain reaction. this is why we enter into social interactions. this reaction/outcome could be simply causing the other to smile, ensuring the other doesnt get bored or causing the other not to hate us blah blah blah.... even when we go into an interaction thinking "i dont care how this interaction goes", unfortunately on some level thats also how u want the other to perceive it.. there is always an intended outcome/s that we set about acheive. We attempt to acheive this outcome using tactics (the use of words). there is no shame in following a process to achieve an outcomes in a social interaction. whether it is called manipulation or not. its natural. on a basic level there is no alternative to this. even when u think u may not be manipulating another in a social interaction, u inevitably will be as u r essentially making use of all pre-processed experiences (first hand or otherwise) to get u through the interaction in one piece. even when a person is improv'ing, guess what ur still just using tactics...improv. its how we work as humans. if we didnt use tactics our social interactions would otherwise be highly erratic and meanings would be lost completely. please do not automatically equate manipulation/using tactics with something negative and bad, it is not always so, my parents manipulated me by constantly telling me to do my homework, it served me well in the end.

im sure u agree ;P


moving on...

pua context
to put ur point in a pua context ur saying that all those who consider themselves naturals shouldnt use tactics to seduce and bed women, as doing so is contrary to being natural. because naturals dont use anything that could be regarded as a technique?????? u imply that once you disclose and analyse an infield game u pass some sort of invisible point of no return whereby u discover the principles at work behind the game and therefore discover their inherent manipulative quality. i say all actions/words have an inherent manipulative quality, (this is not necessarily bad) thats why we use them, becuase we want to acheive an outcome. again no shame in that. the point is is that we can actually aim the manipulative aspect of the infield game away from the girl, and so the inherently manipulative game is used in a way so as to not be a pua tactic, it is instead used to simply have fun, eg this could be easily achieved with the freeze frame high five game with other guys or the pose down or dance off, clearly not the word game as its blatantly pua based. see the water analogy above.

so again i state that intention is the determining factor with some of these games, they can be used as a pua tactic or just for fun....in any case they will always have a manipulative element. surely u can see this??



as highlighted above, everything we do in a social interaction is inescapably geared to achieve an outcome. so its absurd to say that naturals shouldnt disclose and analyse their in field games so as to avoid discovering their inherent manipulative qualities and use for acheiving an outcome. thats just far too puritanical and just silly...dont try work out what u did well, its not good for u...whaaa???. is this what being natural is....consciously dumming urself down in order to delude urself into thinking ur not being manipulative????? in any case no one can keep coming up with new stuff on the spot each and every time when talking to a girl. and even if they do, that developed ability is in and of its self being used as a tactic to manipulate a social interaction. this is such circular bs. we cannot escape the inherent manipulative quality of our words and intent.

in any case the real point here is that disclosing and analysing the games will not take u past the point of no return. this is because on some level we pass this point as soon as we finish the actual first use of new and novel sentence/game that acheives a positive outcome. further analysis at a later date is fairly inevitable and is no bad thing. regardless of whether we dissect the sentence/game and its outcome on this forum or in our own mind. its natural and good. i refuse to consciously limit my understanding of my social interactions. i fully accept that all words in an interaction r being used to acheive an outcome and so they are thereby manipulative in nature. again this need not be a bad thing. as such i suffer no anxst in disclsoing my perceived understanding of the principles at work and the exact extent of their manipulation.

in fact i would say knowing the principles behind what works and what doesnt is essential for naturals. human nature is human nature. if the principles work then they work. naturals are aware of the the relevant principles in any individual interaction and so interact in a way which feels natural to them whilst ensuring the priciples are used to an extent (eg push pull neg dhv). again human nature is human nature.