There are many myths in the pu community that need a good busting. Not too many of them permeate our predominantly intelligent and reasoned forum. However, there is one that has appeared in a few posts here recently (some of which were lost in the crisis) that I'm gonna bust right now.

Myth: Socially inept guys need to start with pre-scripted conversational gambits.

No post can cover everything. Therefore, as in all posts, the arguments in this post contain assumptions, which will be largely unargued for. Namely:
1. The goal is to become someone who is able to freely express their authentic self.


It is weird and unnecessary to use scripted openers, routines or other pre-planned material when meeting girls
There is no precedent for this behaviour. As I understand it all the active members here are over 18 and in our lives we've each had many thousands of social conversations, both with friends and strangers, and been privy to many thousands more social conversations. I'm willing to bet that the percentage of social conversations you've had that you'd pre-scripted, before discovering PU, is either 0% or close enough to 0% to be negligible. As a result, we all can and, multiple times in an average day, do, with very little effort, construct sentences on-the-fly that express even our most complex thoughts and feelings.

Therefore, to pre-script a social conversation is weird as it is strikingly odd and unusual behaviour, and it is unnecessary as we all have an enormous backlog of experience of un-scripted social conversations.


Overt Operation recently suggested that learning to be social was analogous to learning to play the drums. He used this analogy to argue that it was necessary to start out with scripted conversational gambits. His full post can be found here: http://www.puaforum.co.uk/16584-post75.html

Other members have subsequently made reference to this post. I will now address the points in his post and show that, in fact, the two situations are not analogous. (Though in fairness to OO, I'm pretty sure he no longer stands by his own analogy since meeting us all in Manchester recently and given the content of some of his more recent posts.)

I'll not address this portion again as I already covered it above. Suffice to say, we all have significantly more experience of social conversations than OO does of drumming.

This may be how we learn drums, but it is not how we learn to speak. Mostly we learn to speak simply by exposure. We are constantly exposed to spoken language and eventually we begin to repeat the sounds we've heard. Also, although there is some external correction, the amount of which depends on your environment, we, largely, self-correct. Basically, like learning to walk we just have a go and keep having a go till we get it. We are definitely not made to constantly repeat the same paragraph of text over and over again until we can recite it with perfect pronunciation (whatever that is).

Plus, as stated above we have already learned all the basics of conversation.

Again, we already are advanced conversationalists with significantly more experience already than we will ever have of anything else, e.g. drumming.
The argument that you need to be able to recite a script perfectly before you are able to improvise is not analogous either. I have never learned to recite a script yet I improvise all my conversations and have done before I even knew what the word script was, let alone had the reading and memorisation skills to learn one.

Moreover, for the last year I have studied improv. The beginners class did not begin with the memorisation of scripts. There are no scripts in improv and any use of scripting would at best have no effect whatsoever on the students' ability to improvise or, more likely, a negative psychological effect. The negative psychological effect would come from students putting pressure on themselves to create through improvisation something as polished as the scripted stuff they had been working with. Which is not possible and, furthermore, not even desirable.


Another vital non-analogous factor is that a drum hit the same way always produces the same response, a person approached the same way will not - even if it is the exact same person.

... continued below.

After I started writing this post Hustler wrote this on the same subject in response to MB who is considering the canned route:
Quite probably he did, as did I, however millions of children learned to ride a bike without ever using stabilisers. And, I know of no evidence that using stabilisers does anything to assist in learning to ride an un-stabilised bike. But, I do know that every person I have discussed the subject with fell off their bike a number of times whilst learning, and still occasionally fall off their bike after becoming extremely proficient cyclists.

We are not children, we are men and as such we should not fear a few minor falls. (But that is surely a subject for another time.) We are sacred of minor falls, so I'll work within that framework.

You will still fall off your bike and crash into things even if you use stabilisers, everyone I know did. Just like using routines will not stop you getting blown out. Also, when the stabilisers come off you'll still fall off your bike a bunch of times before and after becoming proficient.


Dropping the analogies for a bit, using routines will not make you a better conversationalist. Instead they will stunt your growth by cutting down your opportunities to improve at conversing. When you approach you create a situation where you can make use of your conversational skills. If you then use scripted lines, you have thrown away that opportunity and growth in that area will not occur.

Instead of assisting with personal growth using scripted gambits will actually damage your growth. By using them you are pragmatically accepting that your own words are not good enough - that you are not good enough. (This has been discussed in depth elsewhere on the site.)


And now an analogy of my own ...

Let's get naked!

In order to become a socially awesome guy who is freely expressing his authentic self we need to strip off the filters that prevent us from behaving authentically. Learning scripted gambits and manipulative tactics is the opposite of this, it is adding more filters, more layers of conditioning, it is making you less authentic.

I like to sleep naked (ponder that sexy thought for a while boys ). When I'm getting ready for bed I start to take my clothes off and continue removing them till there are none left (hot, I know). This is equivalent to the process of stripping away the filters that prevent you from freely expressing your authentic self. What I definitely don't do is start to put more clothes on. With the goal of nakedness putting on more clothes is stupid in the extreme and has exactly the opposite effect than that which is required.

If you want to get naked, the only sensible course of action is to remove your clothes. And, the sooner you start, the sooner you'll finish.

If you want to become a man who is freely expressing your authentic self, the only sensible course of action is to remove the filters that prevent you from doing so. And, the sooner you start, the sooner you'll finish.


Peace,

kowalski

Well said sir. I was an advocate of the MM stabiliser theory until not so long ago but see no point in advising anyone to go down that path any more. The only glorious thing about the Mystery Method is it gives the everyday man potential access to forums like this, although it took me a good 2 years to delve that deep.

I think the main reason gambits exist are to not let you express your genuine self but as a way of getting over AA or an excuse to act because it won't harm your true self as they are someone else's word or techniques you have adapted not your own.
A stabiliser which then give you the confidence to do it without gambits, however if you look at how and why you have AA first do you really need any scripted material and then learn to deal without them?

I think that the drum analogy should be used more with the development of speech as opposed to talking to women. The first beat is the first word, but even before that crying, physical movements etc are ways of interacting with people.
Then again I have seen people teach themselves the drums without sheet music or instruction but that's drifting off topic.

How strange.. I've been thinking about conversational skills a lot recently and now this wonderful post.

I just posted this clip of Orson Welles take on a performer wining over an audience, a skill which is not easily pulled off. He talks about real audiences being extinct and therefore the skills needed to seduce or dominate an audience are becoming redundant.

Orson Welles on performers working an audience

In a way, we are performers winning over the attention and attraction of the female audience. Interesting...

So... to start, I want to discuss my under lying thoughts on this subject. I agree with the bigger picture of your statement K but I suppose (as always!) I have to pick at the finer detail.

From my point of view, I agree that canned openers aren't the be all and end all to obtaining the goal you defined. But I sort of disagree with the statement; 'Socially inept guys 'need' to start with pre-scripted gambits' is a Myth.

I highlight 'need', because ultimately, you're right.... Guys don't NEED to start with canned openers but they are good way clear your mind, forget about what's coming out of your mouth and concentrate on dealing with deeper issues (like AA).

It's currently my belief that:

1)(Again) you're right... that most people are socially equipped to engage it good conversation. I mean, HELL! How could they get through life without some sort of communication skills!
2)To become 'socially ept', basically, all you need to HAVE more conversations; therefore...
3)A Social Inept person needs to START more conversations... and that's all that matters.

Starting a conversation with a beautiful lady is a big topic in this community. And I don't think we should bury the tools that have been discovered (or, even worse, deem them as weird!). They have helped many a PUA overcome the feelings of anxiety they (we) get on initial approach or/and mid-game.

Okay... I'm going to take a step back and say that in this post I am talking about the very fundamentals of becoming Social Ept. We can argue that to REALLY become Social Ept, that we have to connect with the other person on a higher level... and that canned openers can be damaging as you can come across false. (or that your just a plain bullshitter...)

But depending on where you are in your journey on becoming Socially Ept, I believe Canned Openers (or any type of openers) have different value. I feel that I'm at the very start of my journey so currently I open, not to get to know the person better, but to know myself better... and to become desensitised to AA.

To obtain that, I particularly find Canned Openers useful. My issue is currently AA. I feel I need to use as many tools as I can to overcome (or to become comfortable with) this feeling.

It's also my understanding that the first things we say to someone doesn't really matter (and actually... I find it very hard to remember the first thing that any of my good friends said to me). So (imo) what does it matter if it's pre-scripted or just a plain 'hello!'. Just to make sure that you're confortable with what you are saying.... I plain 'hello' leaves things far too open. I've found myself stumbling and saying utter rubbish because my brain doesn't respond that quick (yet - this is where I see improv has its value).

If you're looking to overcome AA then the key here is JUST OPEN! Nothing more, nothing less... it doesn't matter what you say.

I've come across very 'AA busting' in this post because that is where I am at now. Also, note that I've highlighted throughout the post that these thoughts are my current mindset (imo, I think, it's my current belief)... Realities can be defined and redefined. I'm glad this forum is here to bounce thoughts and ideas off and help me to become a better person.

K, you seem to be beyond my currently level of thinking so obviously I'm sure your insights will be very different to mine. I haven't thought about 'What would be a good thing to open with?' without taking AA into account. But if I didn't have AA, I'm sure I would be more inclined to agree with you.

At the end of the day monkey you are your own man, do what you gotta do to get to where you want to go. Do whatever works for you to get you opening your mouth to strangers and if that means going canned for a little while then so be it. It's fine, don't feel that it's not once you start feeling your feet in time you'll have the confidence to project the real you authentically.

Of course the real longterm goal is to be authentic in all that you say and do. That takes time, each person takes that journey along different paths. I know going canned is only a short-term thing (and this is what it should only be) for you as a simple and effective way of purely getting you to open your mouth to a stranger. Alot of the guys that slate canned material were never comfortable trying/using it in the first place, that's their perogative, I was fine using it at first it helped me alot, overtime I went beyond that and now feel fine just being me.

I can understand a guy being crucified here if he's still purely going canned after 2/3 months practice but if a guy is in your situation it's simply just an exercise in approaching and opening. I don't have a problem with with a guy doing that, and why should I?

I already addressed all that here ...
So unless you have real evidence to support your claim that canned openers fix AA, then all we have are anecdotes.

Hustler recently posted ...
True. Also true is the fact that neither dared open without this crutch. Both still had the same 'problem' (if you'd call it that) as when they started. Being the king of canned didn't help either of them one jot when it came down to it.

Conversley both Tom (who posted about it recently but it was lost in the crisis) and I had more AA before we were exposed to natural ... seems a strange thing to say in defence of scripted game. It would work better as an argument for not using scripted game, because it doesn't actually matter what you say. You accept that yourself - Therefore, SAY ANYTHING.

This makes me realise that you are just defending your position rather than engaging in a discussion aimed at discovering a truth.

There is too much of this going around from people who claim to be searching for something greater. People are looking. They are shown. They are not ready. They resist. Standard.

I'm trying to save you wasted time and effort. Not you specifically MB, though you are in my mind too.

If the whole argument for scripted rests on overcoming a feeling that you should cherish, a feeling you 1. should not and 2. cannot overcome, a feeling that makes this whole activity worthwhile, then there is really no worthy argument for it at all.

And, all that is without even touching on the weirdness of using canned stuff. Of why I am quite comfortable with everyone and anyone knowing who and what I am, proud even, common with natural heads, while the canned kids live their secret double lives hoping they are not found out.


Peace,

kowalski

I thinking you get my point in principal, but I was trying to get across was that I would rather for now stick to the canned stuff so I don't have to have an extra thing to worry about when approaching. Canned stuff tries to lead the conversation initially so you can get to the beyond the bullshit defences to get the real conversation. I don't see a problem with that. Natural requires a great level of thinking-on-your-feet skill and approach confidence that I just don't have at the moment. So canned material seems like a temporary solution until I do...

Remember... I said I am trying to become comfortable with the feeling. And this feeling is so strong that I don't even make the approach; it's not one that I personally cherish (for now). We all the know, the more things you have to think about then the harder it is to approach (Hick's Law). This is where I agree with Hustler's argument for using canned material as a crutch. But we'll see.

No mate, you have me totally wrong. I am. 100%. I'm just giving you my (very limited) point of view. Aren't we all defending a position? That's what make these conversations awesome!

Frustrating I know. I'm an awesome programmer. I manage a team of 8 programmers. It's frustrates me when they don't do as I say as I know it's the right way... but sometimes I let them smash there head against a problem until they are ready to hear the answer. But I realise that they have to go through that to really understand the solution.

I found that the 'Be yourself' answer not good enough for me right now. I've tried it and failed so many times (10 years) that it's time to try something different for a while.

I got home at gone 10.30pm tonight hoping to get to bed quickly before another early morning swim. Then I saw this thread. Even the best laid plans…

I do not fully stand by the ‘drums’ analogy, you’re correct. Its massively ironic, almost absurdly so, but that analogy was made at a time when I was becoming incredibly frustrated with my game because I was opening fine (canned), but then having nowhere to take the conversation. My initial reaction to this wasn’t to look at the openers, and think ‘shit, using a canned opener is restricting me to a narrow conversation’, but rather I thought ‘the opening routine isn’t helping me achieve my aims. I therefore need more routine!'

The drums analogy was most likely intended to support my decision to search for more routine, as opposed to anything thoroughly thought out. Looking back, I appreciate its short comings. Tom made this point better than any other way I can:

…is a very good point, and obviously blasts my entire analogy out of the water! Some of the best drummers I know taught themselves to drum – I was just lucky (and middle class!) enough to have private lessons bought for me. As such, in terms of the drums analogy, I accept it doesn’t adequately explain either a broad theory of learning a skill, nor is it particularly analogous to pick up.

As I say, at the time of that post, I was attempting to justify my then decision to search for more routine to solve the problem presented by the fact that the piece of routine I was regularly using – a canned opener – was mysteriously not leading into dazzling, original conversation. I know – bereft of logic, and I do look back and wonder.

Fortunately, if you look further on in my Field Reports thread, you’ll also see that pretty quickly I reel back from this decision, and instead of attempting to find more routine to solve the problem of ‘where to go after a canned opener’, instead I decided the canned opener itself was the problem, and that it would have to go. This has since been the aim of my game – to do away with canned openers, and to begin to attempt to go and speak to girls without the use of anything canned.

So, do I now look back on a few months of canned openers and think ‘what a waste of time that was’? No! Absolutely not. On Friday night last week, Dave turned to me whilst we were in the court yard of Heebies, nodded towards two girls, and said ‘that’s your set’.

I said ‘Ok’, and walked straight over to them and began a (naturally opened) conversation.

What has given me the confidence to be able to walk over to a strange group of girls and begin a conversation with them? The confidence has come from spending 2 to 3 months doing it with the use of canned openers.

That, of course, depends on how we define evidence. I have no statistical data to provide to you, nor anything scientific which will provide a concrete basis for my support of canned openers for those who, like me, are at the beginning of their journey. Science attempts to demonstrate the existence of ‘laws’ – predictable results to a + b. I can offer you nothing that explains so concretely - and supports undeniably - my belief in canned openers as having some use for beginners.

My only evidence therefore is anecdotal evidence, which I have earlier today explained elsewhere. It is my own experience of canned openers which makes me confident enough in them to strongly recommend them to my fellow newbies. Here is what I said earlier:

I stand by that 100%.

Is it possible to learn to speak to girls without canned openers? Yes, absolutely. There are many who have done it, and to them, I nod with respect.

But do I think (my only evidence being my own recent experience) having a few canned openers ready to go can be of immense help to someone who wants to develop the confidence to go and speak to strange girls? I think, for some people who have problems with AA, they provide a useful circumvent to the limiting belief of ‘I don’t know what to say’, ‘I can’t think of anything to say’, ‘Nothing I say will work’, etc.

Using canned openers is a stepping stone to help cross what for many people is a massive leap. They aren’t perfect, and I imagine (and hope) that many people end up at the same place that I did – frustrated with canned openers, because having learned to open, they get bored with the same conversation very quickly.

But bear in mind the intended use of the canned opener when I recommend it to someone. I don’t intend it as a permanent solution, and would strongly advise against this. Rather, I would advise their use only as a starting point, to be graduated from as quickly as possible – namely once you no longer have a problem approaching girls.

3 months ago, if Dave had said to me ‘go and talk to those girls’, I’d have froze, petrified. I would have said ‘I’ll do it in a minute’, ‘Now isn’t the right time’, ‘I don’t really fancy them’, or whatever. Anything to excuse myself from having to approach them.

I put the fact that I can now approach those girls without a second’s hesitation down to the fact that I have practiced with canned openers for a few months in an effort to overcome my AA.

This is a complex subject, and to really get into it I’d want to talk at some length about the nature of AA, the nature of a canned opener, and perhaps sometime soon I’ll sit down and think through why, for me, canned openers were such an effective agent at eradicating AA.

This will need to touch on the nature of AA – what is it, where does it come from, why it is there; the nature of a canned opened – what are they, why do they hold such authority, why do they seem easy to use; and further, to question whether the use of canned openers were one among several potential techniques for tackling AA, and whether my own promotion of canned openers is made with an ignorance to these other methods. There is probably a great deal which could be written on all of these subjects.

To be sure, though, I don’t claim to be the holder of some eternal truth: that using canned openers will blast AA.

What I do say, however, is that for whatever reason, it worked for me.