I’ve been out of the meat market for a long time, so I have no interest in “Game” as a skillset.  But its underlying assumptions — that men and women exhibit biologically-programmed behavior — seem sound, and generate interesting conclusions.  Like this:

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Though he’d piss himself if he knew it, “framing” in PUA lingo is pretty much identical to George Lakoff’s political version.  Lakoff, you’ll recall, is the guy who claims that

people view the world through the lens of their metaphors, which he thinks provide them with the framework of their thought. Since the 1980s, liberals have allowed conservative metaphors to take over their own metaphoric framework, so that all discussions or arguments about social policy are carried out on conservative terms. Liberals waste their time and effort in arguing from the evidence (conservatives, of course, can have no evidence); they should instead be working to get conservatives to accept a different metaphoric framework.

As epistemology, it’s junk — the set of policies called {Patriotism Plus} is exactly equal to the set of policies called {Socialism}, and will be rightly rejected by any sane person on the exact same grounds.  But as a tactic for fooling low-info voters, it’s pretty good, and as a tactic for picking up chicks — if the Chateau Heartiste guy(?)* is to be believed, it’s gold.

And, as we saw above, it’s pretty good for protecting the soft, squishy egos of liberal snowflakes, too.  If you assume that all human interactions are at some level contests**, then the person who controls the frame controls the outcome.  In this case, of course, the conflict is between the “effete liberal manlet” (such deliciously vicious phrasing!) and himself, but still — the (correct) perception that he’s a sexual marketplace loser must be beaten down at all costs, and so it’s not “fear of being judged,” it’s “tolerance of ambiguity.”

This “reframing” stuff could be quite useful in political discussions.  Not that it’ll change liberals’ minds, of course — if they could properly perceive reality, they wouldn’t be liberals — but it will cause them to flee in tears, which is the best realistic outcome (and schadenfreudily fun, too).

*The author(s) speak of themselves in the plural, but I saw somewhere that this was once the blog of one guy, who called himself Roissy.  Whether he’s added co-bloggers, or this is just a mocking use of the Royal We, doesn’t really matter.  But I don’t want to misattribute.

**As you’ll recall, this is Foucault’s fundamental (heh) insight.  See what I mean about the kernel of truth in this stuff?  Lefty professors convert kids by introducing beachhead facts — small nuggets of truth — then building giant edifices of bullshit around them.  Their facts are ok, but their conclusions are 180 degrees from reality.  Profs do it to get tenure; lefties in the real world do it because they’re malignant narcissists.