Violation Theory

[Tha Gangsta]

You're right, Mastery. It does go well beyond AMOGing. I had only read the first part and, while he does get in to fighting past ASD, there was also a good amount of how to "AMOG the AMOG" if you will. I'll have to finish reading it, but my contacts are out of whack. It might take a while.

But thanks for clearing that up.

OG

[daredevil]

Wow! Lovedrop, you are incredible at breaking down (yours and) Mystery's game for us.

This is advanced stuff, and truly refined. I always saw like an air of politeness embedded in Mystery's game...And you have blown it right open in understanding this concept.

Thank you Lovedrop & Mystery!

However how do you account for his Ballsier openers (eg "Do you know why you SUCK??") to SHBs?

I assume then that, using violation theory, had the SHB remained calm and level headed (instead of the instant shocked feeling), she would have been able to find a choice of words or actions that would have instantly lowered his value enough to ignore him(making him the violator), instead of letting him in...??

-x- Daredevil -x-

[Odyssey]

I've read the whole thing. pure gold.

I guess being the violater is that akward feeling you feel when your amoging startegy didn't worked out. If I look back to the times my AMOG'ing didn't succeed, I always was the violater.

Great insight and thanks for sharing this!
I hope this will be included in the new e-book you guy's are writing!

OD

[daredevil]

Lovedrop,

Conversely, if you go into someone else's set, and you are nice, without making social errors, then the set is under a certain social obligation to show basic politeness. They can't just ignore you.

But they CAN and sometimes DO IGNORE. EVEN if you're polite and make no social errors...But there lies the crux of the statement..

There's no doubt as to the theory being correct, but in this case, it must be that JUST approaching can be interpreted as a violation/social error, as rejection by the whole group DOES sometimes happen... And as you wrote:

There is no longer any social obligation to be polite once someone has become a violator

Because, lets face it, being approached by a strange guy when you've gone out to spend time with your friends IS socially unusual, even if just a tiny bit, and there is definitely a little pressure on them to be nice back, so im interested to know how is it that this sometimes occurs from a social ethics perspective?

But as you also wrote:

Different violations, and different baits, have differing levels of plausible deniability.

I agree - its definitely a Spectrum. There are levels of violation and social acceptability, rather than an on/off switch.

Anyway, I'd LOVE to read your analysis and break-down examples of your and Mystery's routines/recent interactions!

Thanks again,

-x- Daredevil -x-

By the way, WHERE's Mystery?

[Crash]

i like the whole theory.

daredevil: i don't think that opening can be viewed as an act of violation as there may always be a socially appropriate reason for your approach (you need a lighter, you want to know the song name, you wanna know where the bathroom is etc). even if they're really there to talk to each other (the two friends that haven't seen each other in months), they are still obliged to give you the choice of violating or conforming to social ethics (staying or leaving).

i'm thinking that what this theory describes is actually being a real gentleman. someone who doesn't buy drinks for her because he tries to buy her approval, but someone who has a profound knowledge of social standards and etiquette that he just "does the right thing". it all comes down to your frame.

the only thing that somehow doesn't fit into all of this theory are negs.
no matter how smooth your neg is, it still has to be noticed as a slip of your social judgement, otherwise it has no effect (ever negged someone who was dumb and she didn't even get that you were negging her?).

so if you're saying "nice nails, are they real?", you're "social game" has slipped. you don't do this when you're polite. she'll think "no, he didn't just say that, it's inappropriate, even if it's true."

same goes with blowing your nose in front of her without excusing yourself (sniper neg).

now i know that negs work if used correctly. but i somehow can't fit them into the system. lovedrop, would you mind explaining this a little more? thank you.

[RobLaughter]

From a quick skim, this looks a lot like Expectancy Violations Theory, a real-world communications topic. I once wrote an extensive post on EVT and the Elaboration Likelihood Model for mASF, but scrapped the idea because I didn't like how I tied it to pickup. Decent job here, though.

[Scythe42]

My thoughts on this topic:

Basically it is Expectancy Violation Theory. But when analyzing interactions a bit more in details, it might be a good idea to do it from an Interaction Adaption Theory point of view and treat violations as part of it. Violations cannot explain social interactions alone. Especially not when it comes down to game.

If you see things from a Violation Theory point of view, meaning a person is only aware about his expectations to a social interaction when these expectations are violated, you are missing out a lot of informaton and therefore possibilities to enhance your game. It is clear that we interpret the messages others send based on how we expect other to behave in a social setting. But we also adapt to a communication partner and especially to the social setting.

Violations can be a powerful tool for setting up an AMOG to fall into a trap and trick him into making a social error. In addition violations can be used to being perceived different on the first impression. In that case you don't really violate the social rules but bend them a bit. Negs are a good example for this. Whenever bending the rules you need a strong frame for supporting it.

Expectancy Violations Theory is also used for in the day game teachings of Pickup 101. They recommend using a "pre-opener" for day game, meaning starting the social interaction with something that's expected when a player approaches a target before continuing with ones usual game routine. It's basically making an individual feel more comforable of being cold approached by a stranger, when they are not in the mood for a social interaction. This is often the case when cold approaching a target on the street during day time.

Also confrontational game (some might call it direct game) makes use of violating social expectancies with the goal of being perceived different than the masses and with more self confidence. Even when violating an expectiation you are not always making a critical mistake. This is where adaption theory comes into play.

Another application of Expectancy Violations Theory can be found in Radical Honesty. People are usually not fully honest, therefore being radical honest violates the social expectancy of being polite. It's a matter of technique doing it right. Being a violator or just bending the rules is a subtle but important difference. You can get away with any violation as long as you make it appear to comply with the social rules, even if what you are saying really doesn't.

To quote Miller on that: “The impact of the violation will depend on two factors; the evaluation of the violation itself and your assessment of the person who committed the violation.”

But what about the already mentioned Interaction Adaptation Theory?

This newer theory for interpersonal communication suggests that a predictor of how you interact with others is your tendency to adapt what others are doing (call it calibration if you want). This is very important. Not everything is perceived by violations only and commiting a violation doesn't mean game over right away. Remember the "weird look" you mentioned and that one should continue to plow? This is adaptation theory. You understood what was going on in her mind and reacted accordingly to it.

You might have violated a social expectation and got a weird look. But still the target is interested in you and sends out a passive IOI. It's now up to you. Can you handle the situation? Can you adapt to it?

Especially nonverbal cues like interactional synchrony play an important role in Interaction Adaptation Theory (especially for providing comfort to a person). Adaption Theory deals a lot with nonverbals like the "weird look" you mentioned as an example. It also deals with Kinesics, in some publications by analyzing examples of courtship behavior. Any player should get a good college text book about adaptation theory. Really improves the eye for subtle cues and your social understading and therefore improves the ability of being in control of a sitation.

And to make it complete, I should mention the Emotional Contagion Theory, which simply suggest that emotional expression is contagions. Anyone should now this from laughter.

Take this three theories and apply them to your game and you will smoothen out a lot of small issues. It's about understanding what's going on in your communication partner.

[Mojo]

I’ve seen this theory manifest itself in my gaming


Here is a real world example using violation theory

If brief, gaming hot AznHB8.5. She actually finds out via third party that the opener I used to open her was made for that purpose… to open her. The AMOG in the set instantly called me “Pathetic”. I ignored him. He then proceeded to call me pathetic 3 more times in increasing volume. I proceeded to ignore him and game the girl. Each time he called me pathetic he lowered his value… guy was trying to hard. Each time I ignored him and showed I was not even fazed by the word he was saying, I raised my social value. After a bit more gaming, the AMOG started qualifying himself to me. This is where I knew it was over. Used a paraphrased version of TD’s “Look man, you don’t have to impress me, I already like you” shortly followed by an NLP interrupt pattern to throw in his subconscious a command that he was out of energy… After which it was really over. Anyway, I sort of went on a tangent here The guy was in total VIOLATION.

And, oh, the HB8.5 invited me to change venue. Upon arriving at the new place her first words were “Can I buy you a drink”. Though I did not get the full close that night


Lovedrop, good job in communicating this theory.

- Mojo

[Suspect]

If violating social rules is truly such a costly mistake, then an obvious conclusion is that developing a very instinctive understanding of social rules and habitually avoiding being a violator is a strong part of social calibration. The first question that comes to my mind is more less "what are the most common ways that I am the social violator." Identifying where you are opening yourself to be AMOGed or otherwise blown-out could do wonders for anybody's game.

In this situation, is it a good idea to point out her weird expression? I remember reading a post by Chariot (RSD) a while ago where he'll point out "she's giving me the sniper look" and make fun of it (haven't had the chance to test it myself). Is that too reactive (actually I don't really understand what "unreactive" really means)?

. By plow and be unreactive it means to maintain your current state, tonality, energy level and expression. You are unreactive because you are behaving in a way that does not depend on her own behavior, so therefore it is not a reaction to her. In terms of violator theory, the look is meant to communicate that you are in fact a social violator, therefore calling attention to it risks reinforcing that you are, in fact, the violator if not done with a strong frame. I imagine that Chariot has a strong frame and hence is able to reframe her look to mean that she is the one being weird.

Say she asks you to do something eg "pass me my purse" - if you don't it could be a violation, but if you do then you seem submissive

The real problem is that you accept her frame that you should pass her purse. Instead, think in terms of her being a violator for being rude enough to demand that you pass her purse. You might call her on this by responding with picking up her purse, but before you actually pass it look at her and say "please...?" and then pass it when she says please. This way, you make her look rude without being rude, and you made her jump through a hoop of your own before jumping through hers.

Say I tell this story in set (the purpose is to subcommunicate that I don't kiss and tell): the story is about how I met this girl and had a ONS, then we didn't see each other for a few weeks. Then one day a friend told me he heard I slept with that girl, and I was furious because I didn't tell anyone so it must have been the girl - and I hate it when people kiss and tell.

I would think this one would be OK, although I might tell it about the ONE TIME I had a ONS, which I totally didn't tell anybody about, and act embarrassed you even revealed this fact - that's just to be congruent with the secret society that you don't openly admit to having ONS, it's just understood. Also, I'd probably be 'upset' rather than 'furious', the latter seems too out-of-control.

I say "that's not high, many of my female friends have had much more... of course that's not what they tell most people, because some people are very judgemental."

This, to me, feels like a violation

[Nitro]

Pure Gold.

;=--