- Joined
- Feb 6, 2020
- Messages
- 402
TLDW - Actual Medical Professional talks about frame.
Dr. Orion has slowly been bringing in Pick Up and other concepts into his work.
Little bit surprised he hasn't gotten any push back.
Pick Up Principles becoming Mainstream?
- Thread starter West_Indian_Archie
- Start date
TLDW - Actual Medical Professional talks about frame.
Dr. Orion has slowly been bringing in Pick Up and other concepts into his work.
Little bit surprised he hasn't gotten any push back.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2020
- Messages
- 402
I think the breakdown goes like this
- Milton, Perls, Satir did work with hypnotism and psychology/psychiatry.
- Then Bandler and Grinder took those ideas and created NLP (which some argue has been debunked)
- From there Tony Robbins and Ross Jeffries applied NLP concepts to other fields.
I think as time went on, that question just became part of the banter without there being any deeper meaning to the words.
I don't have a degree in the stuff, but all that pacing and leading, frames, and what not is hardcore old school game.
And it most definitely works in pick up, because it works in sales, marketing, advertising, teaching, coaching, managing people, etc.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,056
I’d love to see more research on pickup principles get done.
I’ve considered at some point funding empirical studies on guys using SAC when chatting up girls versus guys instructed to use mainstream advice (“just be yourself”, “if it’s meant to be, it’ll be”, “you’ve gotta go shoot your shot”, etc.). All the polls we’ve conducted with Google Scholar and Mechanical Turk have been on things you’d think would be really interesting to know but no one ever has researched (such as “How soon after you met the last guy you went on a date with did you know you wanted to go out with him?” — interesting answers; no one’s ever researched it before). Many seduction principles in general do not get enough research. They get some, but way more attention goes to other things.
There’s psychological research on frame going back a ways. Here’s a study on how frames affect decisions from 1981. Here’s a paper from 1945 on how frames influence attitudes. So it’s not super new. That said, it’s not something that gets a lot of discussion in academia… unfairly so IMO.
Here’s a pretty fascinating study from 2015 that found that if you frame something as a game, even if it doesn’t have any actual game-like mechanics in it, people enjoy it much more and are much more interested in it. I guess that’s why personality games work so well: “Come on, let’s play a game…”
But yeah, there’s a lot less academic attention to frames than there should be.
There’s a lot of stuff that gets way less attention in academia than it should. A lot of stuff that gets way more attention than it probably needs. About 80% of the attraction research you can find on Google Scholar post-2016 or so has to do with either gay people, trannies, dating apps, or all the above. While that may be the zeitgeist, the fact is most people aren’t gay, or trannies, or on dating apps. Do we need 500 studies into trannies on dating apps? Probably not.
But that’s academia for you. It’s as prone to trends in research and funding as anything else. Unfortunately.
Chase
I’ve considered at some point funding empirical studies on guys using SAC when chatting up girls versus guys instructed to use mainstream advice (“just be yourself”, “if it’s meant to be, it’ll be”, “you’ve gotta go shoot your shot”, etc.). All the polls we’ve conducted with Google Scholar and Mechanical Turk have been on things you’d think would be really interesting to know but no one ever has researched (such as “How soon after you met the last guy you went on a date with did you know you wanted to go out with him?” — interesting answers; no one’s ever researched it before). Many seduction principles in general do not get enough research. They get some, but way more attention goes to other things.
There’s psychological research on frame going back a ways. Here’s a study on how frames affect decisions from 1981. Here’s a paper from 1945 on how frames influence attitudes. So it’s not super new. That said, it’s not something that gets a lot of discussion in academia… unfairly so IMO.
Here’s a pretty fascinating study from 2015 that found that if you frame something as a game, even if it doesn’t have any actual game-like mechanics in it, people enjoy it much more and are much more interested in it. I guess that’s why personality games work so well: “Come on, let’s play a game…”
But yeah, there’s a lot less academic attention to frames than there should be.
There’s a lot of stuff that gets way less attention in academia than it should. A lot of stuff that gets way more attention than it probably needs. About 80% of the attraction research you can find on Google Scholar post-2016 or so has to do with either gay people, trannies, dating apps, or all the above. While that may be the zeitgeist, the fact is most people aren’t gay, or trannies, or on dating apps. Do we need 500 studies into trannies on dating apps? Probably not.
But that’s academia for you. It’s as prone to trends in research and funding as anything else. Unfortunately.
Chase
