I'm pretty new at this, so this may already have been invented a billion years ago for all I know but it's worked well for me so I thought I'd share in case it was new or unknown to the forum.

This is based around the NLP concept that eye movements betray the representational system at use (Simply put, if a person recalls an image, his/her eyes go up; sound-sideways, feeling-downwards). It's best to be sitting down close and opposite to the target (such as at a bar table). Tell the target that you can read minds. You ask the target to think (in turn) of the most beautiful painting/view she can remember, her favourite song and the feeling of being on the beach/dancing/whatever she likes to do (get this info beforehand). Make her really 'get into' these memories-picture all the details of the image, hear the song in her head, remember the sensations of her favourite experience. Check her eye movements as you tell her to do all this, to see if she is part of the 99% (made-up statistic, but it's a high number anyway) for whom memories are represented in this way. Then, ask her to bring up one of those memories again, without saying which (again, tell her to really 'get into' the memory). You then tell her, triumphantly, which one it was. If you get it wrong, act shocked and go 'Wow, you're one of the 3.4 percent of people (or whichever statistic you find realistic) whose mind can't be read. That means you must be really confident to be able to keep me out...'

Advantages:
-DHV/chick crack
-Anchoring (she relives postive emotions and now may associate them with you)
-You can teach her the trick later on for another routine


Based on my opening statement, you are either welcome or I apologise for wasting your time.

Donald Clark Plan B: NLP ? training?s shameful, fraudulent cult


Peace,

kowalski

Haha not saying that I take NLP as gospel (or that Bandler isn't a bit of a looney), but the eye movement system appears to be genuine from my own experience.

There are scientific studies, referenced in the link above, that show the eye accessing cues don't work. Also, one of the two inventors of NLP later admitted that they don't work.


Peace,

kowalski

How about working on giving her actual positive emotions that relate directly to you, rather than borrowing ones that she remembers from someone else. This might involve giving her value, as opposed to attempting to demonstrate that you have some sort of value.

Think you misunderstand the term 'value' in the PUA context

Source for the latter?

How so? Please enlighten me.

Well, the way I understand it, value is not something you 'give' but something you must have or be perceived to have in order to attract, according to Mystery's 'evolutionary switches' theory. Maybe I just didn't completely understand the way you were expressing the term.

I can't remember where I originally read this, it has been some time since I first read his books, but here are a couple of places where it is referenced by others, including advocates of NLP (search for Bandler):
NLP and language learning (Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies) Language Learning Forum
The Skeptic Turned Whistle Blower

What I find most amusing is that although there are scientific studies that discredit NLP and it is something that has never been taken seriously in the field of psychotherapy, you are more interested in finding out whether one of its creators ever admitted that it doesn't work.

Really?

Who gives a shit whether a scammer claims his own scam works or that he believes in it or whatever, when it has already been proven to be a scam?


Peace,

kowalski