Assuming Value Vs. Building It

Cameron Teone has a pretty interesting article about the difference between trying to build your value with a girl, and just assuming that value is already there.

The community ideology seems to come in waves, and maybe if I create a new wave, I can get my own book deal. (Or at least a plaque from Jay.) Well, it’s something to shoot for.

All joking aside, much of current community wave today emphasizes the art of the DHV. DHV stands for “Demonstrating Higher Value.” (Though there are a few guys in recent times rising against this.) The belief system is that you must go in with the mindset of immediately demonstrating higher value. Otherwise, she’ll just think of you as the next guy in line. If you don’t conduct DHVs, then you are just another Joe Blow from around the block.
This is the wrong frame to possess in my opinion. (And it only took me over 2 years to realize it. Lol)

Obviously, everything has some value. Good looks have some value, a nice physique has some value, wit and sense of humor have some value, being a great story teller has value, a nice car has value. It all has value. However, it makes for a miserable existence to perceive everything through a point system of value.

Attraction is not based on logic, but rather on emotion. No woman ever takes a scorecard and adds value points to it. David DeAngelo would tell you that Attraction is not a choice. He is correct in that. Ross Jeffries would tell you that you must move a woman emotionally through “languaging.” He is also correct about moving a woman emotionally. (Whether you decide to do it through language is your choice, but the premise is correct.)

Attraction is not a logical choice. If the value model was completely accurate, then all it would take would be social proof, money, wealth expressed through a nice house, sports car, etc….. Yet, there are countless guys who own all the material wealth, mansions and sports cars and yet cannot get or keep a woman. Why not? Why are they not getting the girls they want? (And when they get women, it’s not them, it’s the money she wants.)
It’s because the “Attraction=Just social value” is a bad model. Attraction certainly can occur from social value, but it’s not the ONLY method.

Are there women who seek social value? Of course. (I do live in the land of silicone tits, LA, after all.) Is someone who is higher up on the social value scale more appealing at first glance? Usually yes. But to internalize the frame that you must at all times build value is the WRONG FRAME To have.

When you consciously decide to build and demonstrate “Higher” value in front of a woman every single time, you automatically assume that you have less value to begin with. There can be no other assumption. If you must build you value, then by default, you essentially believe that you have less value. This is the only possibility.

Similarly, if you feel that you must put down a woman every time you meet one in order to lower her value, what are you assuming? You assume that she is better than you. You assume that you she is above you. You assume that you are lower and less than she is, and now you must tear her down to your level of misery.

This is an insecure way of thinking.

The problem is not the issue of presenting value. It lies in the fact of men approaching with the mindset and belief that “THEY MUST SHOW Higher Value, and they must lower her value.” I meet certain guys and the issue of approaching women pops up. They try to devise complex strategies in order to approach a woman as that you think they were infiltrating Fort Knox. The interesting part is that regardless of who she is as a person, their first thought is, “I must go in, demonstrate higher value, and tear her down and lower her.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this is an insecure way of thinking.

In order to clarify one step further, let’s look the situation from the opposite direction.
Juggler once told me a story about some of the guys who call him to seek advice. Being busy at that moment, Juggler would ask to call the guys back. The advice seekers in turn would run a routine to up their value. “Well, Let’s see, I am busy Monday and Tuesday, hmm…., Thursday is not good either but I can be available Wed night.”

Aside from its comedic value, the story provides a pretty good reverse angle of observation. It’d have just been so much more respectable if the guy assumed he had value instead of trying to build it.

I made the distinction about almost a year ago while I was hanging out with my friend Mark in the East Coast. To his credit, Mark is a good looking guy and he is pretty smooth in his interactions with women. He is also an ex-Navy SEAL of six years which only helps solidify his confidence. When I last saw him, he had a pretty good rotation of women around him and we started exchanging ideas. My most noteworthy observation was that his belief system is completely different.

Now, let’s be honest: Does being a member of an elite military force have value? Yes, of course, it does. But it’s not stamped on his forehead. Women have no way of knowing what he does upon meeting him. (And he doesn’t like to mention it.)
He is a good looking guy as mentioned, but there are a lot of good looking guys who have problems with women. The most important distinction is that his confidence radiates through his demeanor and behavior. His belief system fuels it.

The community teaches a lot of good things, (and sometimes the DHV is necessary for a beginner) but in order to get to the next level, sometimes you have to hang out with guys such as Mark.
He doesn’t think to himself, “I must now go over to that girl and demonstrate higher value.” That thought is not an even an option and if you asked him to do a DHV, he’d probably put his boot up your ass. (that’s just a guess on my part, however.)

What is the alternative to being obsessed with building value?

ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE VALUE.

Ultimately, most of this game is inner game. (Assuming that a guy is socially normal and can carry a decent conversation.!!) At least 80% of this game is inner-game, in my estimation. Sure, a lot of us can benefit from some basic structure, approach ideas, isolations, but that can be taught to someone in a short period of time.

Being witty, a great conversationalist, an interesting storyteller and so forth can all help distinguish a person. That is one way of demonstrating higher value than the people around you. So, what’s the difference?

***The difference is not having to THINK about doing it. It’s very subtle, but it’s an important distinction.***

Ideally, you can open the conversation with almost ANYTHING. Believing you have value versus thinking you must build it shows itself through the subtext, not through the text.

The innergame part can take years. You end up going wherever your focus is, so it’s better to focus on building your own frame instead of how to socially manipulate others.
Focusing on building value in every interaction is certainly is one way of doing this, but so is eating out of a garbage dump.
It just may not be the way that will lead to long term benefits.

In my estimation, if any person constantly feels that he has to conduct a “DHV” upon meeting a new person (male or female), he is setting himself up for misery. You are assuming that you don’t have enough value as a person. Stop thinking along those lines. Stop carrying that frame and perspective.

Focus on being a person who can convey his personality, knows what he wants, and who does not need to impress others, and nor does he to insult others to build his value.
You want a DHV? Here is one: Your DHV is being a cool guy who is comfortable with who he is. That has value, because it’s so damn rare.

Lastly, If you cannot let this model go, if you must hold on to this model because you have invested so much stock in it, then think about this way: “Your ultimate DHV in life will be………. NOT thinking about having to DHV.”

The One

——————————
Learn the Attributes of PUA
www.BuildAttraction.com