A couple of years ago I contributed to a discussion on SedFast.com, and I had mentioned that the idea of faking authority was something that wasn't only possible to do, it was also actually pretty simple. This resurfaced quite recently, and I noticed I hadn't really contributed with any advice on this at all. Not theoretical, nor practical.
To understand how I arrived at the idea about faking authority, it is helpful to understand what I've previously referred to as "discrete frame theory"; an extension of the conventional theory that adds another layer namely named frames. I will not go into depth about DFT here as I might have mentioned it before and it might be too "read-y" for some people. But I will include some of it to make it so you can understand why, from my perspective, it works and also be able to extrapolate techniques in addition to the concrete ones I present.
The base idea of DFT is that frame installation might be a general thing, but depending on what frames you (want to) install, the effect will be wildly different. Being great at stealing and holding a strong frame might not be serving you if you keep stealing and framing the wrong frames.
The frames that I've identified as "power frames" are the following: Dominant, screening, authoritative and provider.
It is not hard to define more frames, but it is hard to define more useful frames I've found because just naming it is not the hard work. Creating the relationships and the system where you can discuss it and actually create effective techniques is what is important. Also, concepts like sexual framing is a crosscutting concern here. It is wildly effective to do sexual framing, but it doesn't fit into this framework. Sexual framing comes up as a set of highly potent techniques that can be used with or without this model. Also, sexual framing is a technique that is very tightly coupled to the area of seduction. DFT works well in the workplace.
Looking at the named frames, you can see that what I've already written needs some modification: The installation of these frames is probably wildly different, and different techniques can be deployed, even if they share a number of general implementation techniques.
The next concept is that of the complementary frame. Any named frame will have a complementary frame. A power frame will have a weak complementary frame.
For the named power frames, the complementary frames will be Submissive (to Dominant), Permissive (to Screening), Suggestible (to Authoritative) and Dependent (to Provider).
A force frame is when you steal and hold a frame, making the other involved party inhabit the complementary frame against their will.
This means that if you take the dominant frame, you will make the other party take the submissive frame. If there is any question if the other party is submissive, it is fair to ask the question whether you are dominant.
Keep in mind that you and your mate can be down at the bar on a Friday and both be dominant as fuck. The idea which one of you is more dominant might never come up, and you might never need to resolve that issue. But it probably means that everybody else will submit more easily to you if you manage to act as a coherent group. This is true for all discrete frames. I would say that being able to occupy the same discrete frames is absolutely key to good wingmanship, and why most people are not very good at it.
Taking this, let's look at authority. Let's start by looking at the complementary frame to the authoritative frame: The suggestive frame.
I am new in town, can you suggest a good place?
It is immediately obvious that coming across as an authority is connected to your ability to not only get your ideas across but have them make an impact in other people's life.
Also, let me force this in: You do not want to always have all the power frames with everybody. This is very important. This is one of the most vicious beginner mistakes when it comes to most things I've seen when it comes to any application of any frame theory, and it will make you absolutely toxic.
To understand this, imagine taking your date to a restaurant and this being your exchange with the waiter:
Ah, I see you've changed the menu. I really prefer the tiger shrimps in boiling chili that you still have as a starter, but I see you no longer have what I used to get as a main dish. Do you have a suggestion for me?
Breaking this down to frame analysis:
- You're a returning customer, and noticing a change in the menu makes you an authority on the place
- Indicating that you prefer one of the starters gives you the screening frame, as it implied you've tried others that are "not as good"
- Handing the waiter the authoritative frame for the next seconds in the interaction says something about how you build your own authority, namely by successfully listening to reliable sources
- If she gives you a decent suggestion, which she will, she will effectively have enforced both your screening and authoritative frames by not contesting them
- She will usually come back with a suggestion of either fish or meat, or ask you "What do you prefer, fish or meat?" Either way, you are free to further cement your screening frame
- If she recommends the halibut you can say:
Ah, I really love halibut, thanks for the suggestion. But I am in the mood for meat today. Let me have the entrecôte, and this is important: Make it rare.
- With this last line, you recognize her as an authority by complimenting her choice. You establish your dominance by picking something else. You cement your screening frame by making absolutely sure that it is prepared to your liking.
This might seem like a rigid analysis for something absolutely mundane. However, that is the power of DFT, and when you understand it, it is very similar to being able to "see the matrix", because it can be applied to pretty much anything.
Let's get back on topic: We're trying to fake authority. Here are some concrete techniques.
Actually raising base knowledge
This is "cheating" a little because it is actually not faking it. Accumulating base knowledge on topics isn't really hard.
Look out your window and see people passing by. Imagine a topic, pretty much any topic. How many of these people do you think, realistically, are better than you at this topic? How many do you think are absolutely clueless?
When considering faking authority, what topics would you consider it being beneficial to be authoritative in for a seduction setting? Which ones of these would you rule in/rule out in relation to most women?
- Pop music
- Pop music production
- World of Warcraft
- Traveling/exotic places
- Scuba diving
This is important because if you try to force a suggestible frame in a topic she doesn't care about, you will be a nerd. That is what a nerd is. A person who knows a lot about a topic that nobody else cares about and tries to force them to listen about it.
Let's imagine you decide that girls seem to be into photography. How long does it actually take you to understand the core concepts of photography? That means, you understand how to operate a camera, how to do decent composition, how to use contrasting colors, how to use depth-of-field to create an expression in your pictures?
My guess? Approximately one hour on YouTube. One hour of dedicated learning on YouTube will probably make you top 5% in photography. Again, imagine people walking past your window. What do they know? Imagine your friends. What do they know? How much do you need to know to actually become an authority?
But please, if you are applying this for seduction, make sure to pick your topics with care. How many girls really want to know about photography?
Authority by proxy
Authority by proxy is the simplest way of faking authority.
I read in Psychology Today that 35% of men are considering never having sex again because masturbation is too awesome.
The structure of this fake is obvious. You take something you (might have) read or heard somewhere and pass it off as fact. The problem with authority by proxy is that it is somewhat dishonest, and people have become a lot more wary of sources in these Fake News-times.
I actually live with a guy who's written a best selling book about sex.
If you are able to say something that is actually honest, you can still implement authority by proxy
An example of a routine based on this is Captain Jack's way of running Strawberry Fields.
Authority by knowing a single thing
This technique is based in probing and forcing the topic.
If you ask someone:
Do you know how to create shallow depth of field when taking a picture?
Most people will say "no". You can then say: "I've tried using a long lens and opening it up fully, but it's not as creamy as I want it to be".
What you're basically done is pick a single item in a topic that you know that you know most other people don't. When you find this hole in their knowledge you can establish yourself as an authority by "filling in 95%" of the blanks. By filling out this complex issue you will in most people's mind know 100% of other issues because you didn't ask about them.
Authority by screening
A lot of negging-lines are actually a simplified way of raising base authority by making the assumption that your taste is important so that an act of screening will make you authoritative.
You can say that screening and authoritative are resonant frames.
In a way, you can say that you can elevate the value of your preferences to the level that they become interesting to the extent that they are considered true. I am not an advocate for negging in this way, but it is a blunt instrument that actually implements this.
Authority by pointing out details
Let's say you're discussing music.
I really like the way they mixed this. I especially like how they managed to get the bass this tight.
Most people don't consider a "tight bass". They just like the song or not. It "sounds good" or "it doesn't sound good". It "makes me dance" or "makes me want to kill myself".
The fact that you are discussing a detail of something that most people only consider as a finished product makes it look like you know the individual parts and their movement.
Modesty in authoritative framing
It is bad if you "get caught" trying to fake an authoritative frame. A technique to make you seem more authoritative in topics where you know little to nothing is to downplay your authority in topics where you are the obvious authority.
If you downplay your authority in areas where you are obviously knowledgeable, people will suspect you do this with all your knowledge, and other areas will be artificially inflated.
That's all I have time for right now. Let me quickly recap:
- The authoritative frame indicates that you have knowledge.
- The screening frame indicates that you have built taste from experience.
- The dominant frame indicates that you are battle tested.
- The provider frame indicates that you have had success.
I hope this was helpful.