Joseph_went_south is a member of the mASF forum. Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page. To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at fastseduction.com/discussion.
Original discussion thread: http://fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=82537&fid=173
There has been so much KJ confusion as to how Social Proof actually works in field and what Social
Proof actually means, that I thought it would be useful to expand the discussion here. I am
interested in hearing field tested examples of both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE social proof. I know there
is going to be KJ theorizing and there is nothing to be done about that, apparently. Still, Social Proof
has been such a powerful tool for me and many other PUAs that it will be useful to discuss in depth,
for our benefit and the benefit of newbs and intermediates.
I have been accused of "expanding the definition of social proof" beyond what it was initially
intended to convey. This is simply false. MASF attributes Dr. Robert Cialdini as the originator of the
concept of Social Proof, and therefore it will be useful to see what he has actually tested and written
on the topic.
First, the MASF definition. It should be noted that the MASF Acronyms/commonly used terms sheet
is a very useful, quick-lookup sheet, but by no means does it imply that the one paragraph definitions
constitute all of the useful information that has been written on any topic. I know guys love "cheat sheets"
and magic bullets» but to become a really good PUA you need to understand these things thoroughly and
field test them. For example, telling a man not to break eye contact first is not enough without context
and calibration. A dope will get called "creepy" by the woman and then wail that the "cheat sheet" told
him to never break EC first. So here is the MASF definition for Social Proof:
"The concept that when you are seen with other women (or keeping a crowd entertained) your social status is raised in the eyes of HBs in the near vicinity. Other forms of display can be seen as social proof (chummy with everyone at a certain place, at ease in your environment, etc.)"
It seems to me that the logical structure of that definition is, it is a CONCEPT, that if you are seen to be doing
x, you will be perceived as y". This fits perfectly with Cialdini's writing on the topic. He of course wrote a
very significant chapter in a very important book on the topic. And others have written entire books on the
topic. The MASF definition is entirely accurate, but doesn't say all that is useful to be said on the issue.
Here's part of Cialdini's definition:
"Social proof, also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed."
So now we get a better idea of HOW your status gets raised in the eyes of other HBs when they see you
"entertaining" or "being chummy" or "being at ease".
Can there be NEGATIVE Social Proof? As surely as there is BAD BL, BAD EC, and POOR logistics, there can be
negative Social Proof:
"Social value of unfamiliar people is ambiguous and requires a lot of effort to assess accurately. Given limited time and motivation, other people will often evaluate others based on how surrounding people behave towards them. For example, if a man is perceived to be in a company of attractive women, or is associated with them, then his perceived social value and attractiveness will be perceived to be greater. The implied cognition in this case would be "All those girls seem to really like him, there must be something about him that's high value".
"If he is seen to be rejected by many women, his social value will be judged negatively. The implied cognition is then "I just saw him being rejected by many women, there is probably a good reason why they don't like him".
Note that Cialdini explains that most of this happens completely SUBCONSCIOUSLY.
Even if we logically know that popularity doesn't PROVE the man is likable, or that a singer has any talent,
or that it's safe to fly on an airplane, the brain still takes society's reaction to the thing as PROOF. Here's
another example:
"Contrary to common annoyance of canned laughter in television shows, television studios have discovered that they can increase the perceived "funniness" of a show by merely playing canned laughter at key "funny" moments. They have found that even though viewers find canned laugher highly annoying, they perceive shows that happen to use canned laughter more funny than the shows that do not use canned laughter."
Now, the following is important, when it comes to using the power of Social Proof in your everyday life,
including PU. MODIFIERS are things that influence the outcome of the thing. In the case of Social Proof, here
are some key Modifiers:
Identification of the surrounding group with self
If the group people who are performing a certain behavior are perceived to belong to the same or similar group, then one is more likely to conform to the group's behavior than if one does not identify with the group.
field example : in my recent post in General, the bartender was an acquaintance of the target. They had
been at parties together and the target had been served by the bartender at that particular bar. They are both
part of the same SOCIAL circle.
Possession of special knowledge
If one perceives that s/he is better advised about a situation than the surrounding group, then s/he is less likely to follow the group's behavior.
field example : in my recent report, the pivot knew me for two years, had been at house parties with me,
and I had been a regular customer of hers for the entire two years. I brought many "dates" with me. Some of
this was explicitly told to the target, some of it was subcommunicated. The target needed to know if it was SOCIALLY,
physically and emotionally safe for her to isolate with me so quickly.
Identification with Authority
If one perceives themselves as a relevant authority figure in the situation, they are less likely to follow the surrounding group's behavior. This is a combination of "Identification of the surrounding group with self" and "Possession of special knowledge". People in authority positions tend to place themselves in different categories than other people and usually they have special training or knowledge that allows them to conclude that they are better informed than the surrounding group.
field example : again with the bartender, she is considered one of the best on the island. She knows a lot
of the gossip that goes on by nature of her job. In other cases, I would take the Lone Wolf into a shop where I
know the female OWNER. I know female police officers, and if I was with a Lone Wolf I would simply introduce
her to my friend the cop and let her see how the cop – who is both an authority figure and has known me for
a long time – FEELS interacting with me.
Another thing that I think a lot of Social Proof critics don't understand is that women are very adept PACK
ANIMALS. They simultaneously display altruism and selfishness, depending on the SOCIAL context. Women
NEED the social group for survival; in the past that meant PHYSICAL survival, and today it means SOCIAL
survival. Being socially outcast is every bit as terrifying to a woman as physical abuse. Because of this deep-
seated SURVIVAL instinct, women are ESPECIALLY sensitive to social cues.
Here is a fascinating example of NEGATIVE Social Proof at work, when by all objective means the player was of
very high value and should have commanded a lot of money for his performance. This is just one of DOZENS
of experiments Cialdini either conducted himself or researched the work of other people. Note than in every
case, the medium, the focus of attention, the THING BEING PROVED is completely different, but they all
support the theory: Humans, especially when under stress or in a rush. almost ALWAYS look to the SOCIAL
GROUP for PROOF of what is high or low value. Here's the example:
"In April 2007, the Washington Post convinced Joshua Bell, a famous violin virtuoso to play in the Washington DC subway during the morning rush hour. So he took his $3.5 million Stradivarius violin and played. Almost no one noticed or stopped to listen. He collected a total of $32 for an hour of playing (not counting a $20 bill that was given by a person who recognized him). This is an example of the power of social proof."
"The above is sometimes given as an example of social proof in action. The subway commuters are using each others' response to the violinists in order to determine their response to him. Without the cues that signal the violinist's quality that accompany him when performing in a concert hall, such as expensive tickets and posters, the violinist is judged by other commuters' reaction to him: as most commuters are primarily concerned with reaching their place of work, this forms the response the commuters signal to one another about the violinist."
"This master violinist's contribution was ignored. In domains where skill is more ambiguous, one would expect the impact of social proof to be even more extreme."
