The surprising parts of Models, two years later: 1/N

Two years ago, I read the book Models by Mark Manson and wrote a brief review. I implemented a few ideas but not all of it. I recently opened it up again and found some surprising ideas in there — I must have read it at the time but it apparently did not sink in. I found:

1. The polarization framework/model:
   1. How a woman "in Neutral" behaves differently from one that is "Unreceptive" or "Receptive."
   2. The idea that women tend to move from Neutral to Unreceptive by default in a month or two if not polarized (either to Unreceptive or Receptive) before then.
   3. What polarizing (or "getting out of Neutral") looks like: Not straight escalation.
2. A reminder that my default strategy is Not Ideal.
3. The idea being non-needy demands being "a joke or an embarrassment" to some. I remembered from the first read that it meant not being to everyone's taste. I didn't remember how far it went.

More detail on bullets 1 and 2 below.

I.a.

The first interesting thing is the "three-state" polarization model. The Receptive state makes sense, the Unreceptive state makes sense, neither of those is a surprise, but Neutral surprised me. Here's one description of what Neutral can look like:

The other way women demonstrate that they’re Receptive is when they reciprocate. It’s important to recognize the subtle difference between a woman reciprocating your advances and a woman being neutral toward your advances. A woman who is Neutral will simply not respond at all. For instance, if you touch a Neutral woman on her back while you speak to her, she’ll just act like you’re not touching her.

(Emphasis mine. And what a ludicrous image! But it is plausible to me, somehow.)

This is worded horribly. Touching her on the back ought to polarize her, for some values of 'her,' and out of context of defining the difference between states, the text implies this would do nothing to polarize her. What he is actually describing is how you tell that you have failed at polarization. He's describing a specific failed attempt at polarizing a Neutral woman and what such a failed attempt might look like.

Chapter 4, Polarization, ought to give a clearer idea of what failed attempts at polarization look like, but it doesn't.

This is important. The core idea of Chapter 4 (Polarization) is to avoid the Unreceptive women and polarize the Neutral women until you find a Receptive woman of interest. Recognizing Unreceptive and Receptive seems simple until you have to distinguish Unreceptive from Neutral.

Sometimes it's easy to tell she's Unreceptive. She said I'm leaving the country in a month. Great, move on! She said, I've got a boyfriend. Great, move on! She said fuck no. Great, move on! But say you don't get such a clear sign — how do you figure?

The way to tell if a woman is Unreceptive is if she repeatedly does not reciprocate your signs of interest and/or shows you signs of disinterest. If you invite her out for coffee and she keeps making excuses to why she can’t, then she’s Unreceptive. If you call her three times and she never calls back, then she is Unreceptive... If you hang out with her and she talks about how frustrated she is with her boyfriend and how you’re such a good listener, then she’s Unreceptive.

(Emphasis mine.)

Repeatedly does not reciprocate seems to be the key distinction he makes between Neutral and Unreceptive.

Is that the right place to draw the line? Hell if I know. I'll have to try it on and report back in a year.

I guess then the general idea is this: Try showing interest. If she doesn't respond with clear interest or disinterest, it didn't work, try some other way. If you go a few rounds like this, consider treating her as Unreceptive — whether or not it is Objectively True in some sense, consider treating your own time and energy with respect.

I.b.

Manson says (Kindle p. 73) a woman often goes from Neutral to Unreceptive in just a month or two:

Typically, if men have been friends with a woman for even a month or two without ever explicitly indicating their sexual interest in her, it’s likely too late.

That seems plausible and it is less time than I would have optimistically speculated if I'd had to make up a number before reviewing this. It's good to have a clear, short deadline to keep in mind.

I.c.

The book is not always clear about what polarization looks like or how it works. For example, page 68 of the Kindle says:

Whatever it is, the goal with Neutral women is to take an action that forces her to make a decision about how she feels about you. Which side she polarizes to is far less important than actually taking action.

(Emphasis mine.)

This sounds like it is all about forcing her to make a decision. So: Directly expressing interest. Anything else is a waste of time, presumably, from the perspective of polarizing. However, the nightclub example from later in the chapter suggests that this doesn't necessarily look like asking her on a date, or even immediately saying anything to polarize her. It could look like asking to talk, and asking questions that may create an opening to polarize her further. Here's the excerpt:

For instance, I recently met a beautiful woman in a nightclub. She danced with me but ignored my attempts to get closer to her. She seemed content to dance with me but was not investing any effort in the interaction beyond that. Sensing that I could easily get stuck dancing with her all night without actually polarizing her, I asked that we go get a drink. I told her I'd like to get to know her a bit better and talk. She obliged.

At the bar, the first question out of my mouth is one of my favorites for Neutral situations: "What's your favorite thing in the world?"

This question will tell me two things: how passionate and self-aware she is about her own life, and secondly if we have anything in common. Women who are not passionate or self-aware I drop very quickly and go meet someone else. Women who share interests with me give me an opportunity to polarize them quickly to being Receptive.

For instance, if a woman answers "Jesus," then I know I'm heading straight for Unreceptive right then and there. Not that I hate Jesus or anything, but let’s just say there’s a conflict of interests.

The question sets him up to either get out himself, or polarize herself and maybe then get out. It works because he is clear about what he'll do with the answer. Actually, it's almost like he's asking her to polarize him.

Worth thinking about what question I would ask to reproduce this. I think it would be a mistake to blindly repeat Mark's question — it's not obvious to me that I'd be able to do anything with an answer.

II.

More on default strategy:

Like I mentioned earlier, the most common strategy by men who are inexperienced with women is “to be liked by all, hated by none.” But when it comes to being intimate and attracting women, this is a horrible strategy. Being hated by nobody usually means you’re not loved by anybody either.

The men who employ this strategy employ it because they’re trying to avoid confrontation and controversy. Many of these men have been avoiding confrontation and controversy their entire lives. It’s part of their fear of vulnerability.

All I can say is: Oops, it me. Probably. Shit. Well, where do I go from there?

Try being more disagreeable, I guess. I'm making some progress on that, but I know there's more to make. I can remember the last time I clearly disagreed with someone — it was just last week, and went fine. It wasn't with a woman. Still, more than I usually disagree — so, progress? I can name another time since then that I probably should have confronted someone and didn't. I think I'm heading in the right general direction, but progress is slow.