You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals; So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

~ Bloodhound Gang

Anyone having spent even a short while studying the world of Dating and Seduction will notice that most of the received wisdom consists almost entirely of machismo, braggadocio, hubris and unnecessary jargon. The English language works perfectly well already, and excessive jargon merely serves to confuse the reader, inflate the self-importance of the writer, and ultimately obscures the issues which it is meant to enlighten.

So, after some small consideration, we find that there are only three positions one can take regarding the seduction process:

1. It’s completely random: This is the stance of the average person, who most likely has only read traditional dating advice given (or sold) by self-proclaimed “Dating experts“. This leads to the conclusion that efforts to understand Seduction are a waste of time and effort. That meeting potential sexual partners through mutual friends, at weddings or via work are the pre-eminent ways of sustaining an active sex life, as dictated by the media. This person would most likely claim “It’s all just a numbers game“.
2. It’s predictable: This is the stance of most of the Seduction gurus that have sprung up over the past couple of years. Developers of expensive rote seduction systems, who believe they can exploit behavioural patterns to an advantage (parrot fashion). These behaviour patterns are held to be fundamental to the system, reflecting intrinsic qualities of human nature (e.g. curiosity, jealousy, excitement etc.) or psychological phenomena (e.g. click whirr thinking, scarcity, social proof, cognitive dissonance etc.)
3. It varies in degree of predictability: This is the stance of those who model the social conditions and adjust their models to changing paradigms. Predictability is itself viewed as variable, with responses changing in the degree to which they can be predicted, and in the elements that comprise valid predictions.

For Seducers subscribing to position number three, any seduction system must exist at a minimum of two conceptual levels. The first order seduction system consists of a set of predictors and a hypothesized relationship between these predictors and anticipated outcomes. The second order system consists of a set of conditions for modifying the parameters of the first system as patterns change.

Stated more simply, a Seducer who ascribes to the notion of changing patterns needs at minimum: (a) a model to use and (b) a process for remodelling to keep abreast of the variation of responses obtained during the seduction process.

It is, of course, possible to conceptualize a third-order seduction system that consists of meta-rules for shifting remodelling processes in response to social conditions.

For example, a very simple first-order seduction model might be to gain the attention of a suitable person, and engage that person in conversation. Then, after creating an emotional connection, arrange a subsequent meeting with them, or obtain contact details, as an option to make plans for some event in the future. The seduction process would thus continue in a location more suitable to the desired outcome.

The type of model originally used may well depend on the location in which the initial contact occurs. For example, meeting people in an open public area might require a model that creates interest and desire very quickly, as this situation is much removed from the more familiar area of a bar / club; which in turn may require a model that gets peoples attention more effectively, as the quantity and frequency of other distractions would be much higher. Although in this case, the Seducer would have more time to create the emotional connection because the person who is being seduced most likely has no immediate need to travel somewhere else.

A second-order seduction system might consist of rules for swapping in improvised material to create an amusing, mischievous, romantic or even a teasing set of circumstances for the original seduction system, perhaps as a function of the person’s behaviour, self-esteem, the surrounding environment or how they look and sound. In the bar / club situation, this could involve seducing in a piecemeal fashion; deciding to use flattery, or some other tactic that could be deemed more appropriate.

A third-order system might consist of rules for categorising people based upon their behaviour or appearance and assigning unique remodelling rules for each category (i.e., select creating a mischievous set of circumstances for people that appear to be lively or energetic; shift to a lower key attitude for people that are more staid / traditional; switch to being a more teasing personality with people that are sexually aggressive etc.)

Through the layering of conceptual levels, the seduction system gains adaptive potential. Indeed, the Seducer who adheres to position number three cannot follow a single seduction system, as changing cycles force the creation of a branching tree of seduction approaches.

In spite of this, most seduction systems only seem to focus on the first level of complexity (approaching, getting a number or bailing out) without consideration of how these are modified in the face of shifting conditions. To the extent that this second level of complexity is missing, the Seducer can be expected to do well only in specific environments, or with particular types of people.

A straightforward application of evolutionary thinking suggests that the seducer who develops more seduction systems across levels of complexity stands a greater chance of achieving adaptive outcomes in the real world.

“The course of cultural evolution is analogous to that of biological evolution. The ‘cultural fitness’ of an individual creator is dependent upon his or her ability to generate big ideas, each representing a certain permutation of smaller ideas. The more permutations that are generated, the higher the odds that a particular permutation will survive the winnowing process imposed by posterity. A less prolific creator will simply have a lower chance of leaving intellectual progeny that will endure this selection process.”¹

The idea that there are seduction systems best suited for particular types of people allows for a higher number of permutations than the idea that a single set of parameters can be used with everybody.

To sum up, Seduction Labs welcomes all contributions concerning the philosophy of seduction, tips on the practicalities and places to meet the opposite sex, as well as methods to improve the relationship that one might have with the person that one chooses to seduce.

References:

1. Campbell, Donald T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes.