Forum Feedback Charisma In a Bottle is very abstract + contradicts some articles

Kaiderman

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
86
@Chase I recently got the Charisma In A Bottle Course - and while the theory you have in there is really good, feels new, and clicks well - it always feels like right when you’re about to go into the technical aspects of the mindset, you switch gears and start talking about a different theory


When reading Lesson 4, I realized that pretty much the whole reason I got this course was because I wanted to cultivate better “slow-build” charisma as well as some more “instant” charisma


People seem to enjoy my presence when I first arrive but as the days go by it wanes significantly, even negatively at times due to my lack of slow build charisma. Its hard for me to cultivate deep, loyal friendships.


The friendships I have, and even the respect I get are usually built on them being starstruck by my slightly above-average instant charisma, that I usually try and maintain by being mysterious and closed off, knowing that it can crumble in an instant. Obviously not fun.


Other people I know can get dominated by another man hard but still have an air of charisma. Definitely not the case with me
Sometimes after someone dominates me or I lose once all my charisma gets burned.

Its like I have nothing else under a somewhat attractive exterior.


So naturally, I was excited to see this being talked about in CIAB. But in the course, all that really happened was the defining of both types of charisma, and after that it just quickly moved on.


An example of an article with good technical and theoretical aspects is the “How to be an Asshole” blog article on GC where you explain the mindsets but also explain technical things you can do to help communicate those mindsets.


(Example) I was expecting something like: “In order to cultivate slow build charisma, deep dive people, qualify them, bring value with unwavering consistency” etc.


Its not even just the charisma types that felt a little lacking in technical explanation. Even the “social dramatization” aspect of being a leader was just defined, and we werent told how.


And while some of the 26 charismatic signals were new to me, and will probably be the part that’ll give me the most direct improvement, they didnt provide the technical aspect I was looking for about those specific things.


The course made me understand charisma as a whole more, but it’s hard to do much with a bunch of theory and not a lot of how


I wouldnt mind if you gave some technical tips now that I can use concerning those topics, but I believe something like that should come included in the $300 course


Edit:

Also, there were a few statements that seem to directly contradict what the articles have said.


1. Charismatic signal #25 says you should be speaking 75% of the time to be charismatic.

But I’ve read over and over in GC that she should be the one putting the effort into the conversation, while you sit and ask probing questions. Adhering to the Law of Least Effort. What changed?


2. You said in Lesson 1 or 2 to not look at the bridge of the nose while making eye contact, but there are many gc articles saying that is the best place to look. Am I missing something?


3. Charismatic signal #26 says you should move more, but you have an old gc article on stillness (found by google searching “stillness girlschase”) that says powerful people stay still and calm. I might just not understand this one to be honest
 
Last edited:

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
4,464
@Kaiderman,

I appreciate the deep feedback here. Thank you.

Some other guys said in the past they felt like the course was too long in the theory, too short in the practical. I tried to make Lessons 3 & 4 more or less straight practical tech -- but maybe I made them too much a collection of tactics, without tying them into a unified method (like One Date) or step-by-step process (like a lot of articles boil down to)?

All these are good notes I could address in an update:

People seem to enjoy my presence when I first arrive but as the days go by it wanes significantly, even negatively at times due to my lack of slow build charisma. Its hard for me to cultivate deep, loyal friendships.


The friendships I have, and even the respect I get are usually built on them being starstruck by my slightly above-average instant charisma, that I usually try and maintain by being mysterious and closed off, knowing that it can crumble in an instant. Obviously not fun.


Other people I know can get dominated by another man hard but still have an air of charisma. Definitely not the case with me
Sometimes after someone dominates me or I lose once all my charisma gets burned.

Its like I have nothing else under a somewhat attractive exterior.

Yeah, I see.

An example of an article with good technical and theoretical aspects is the “How to be an Asshole” blog article on GC where you explain the mindsets but also explain technical things you can do to help communicate those mindsets.


(Example) I was expecting something like: “In order to cultivate slow build charisma, deep dive people, qualify them, bring value with unwavering consistency” etc.


Its not even just the charisma types that felt a little lacking in technical explanation. Even the “social dramatization” aspect of being a leader was just defined, and we werent told how.


And while some of the 26 charismatic signals were new to me, and will probably be the part that’ll give me the most direct improvement, they didnt provide the technical aspect I was looking for about those specific things.


The course made me understand charisma as a whole more, but it’s hard to do much with a bunch of theory and not a lot of how


I wouldnt mind if you gave some technical tips now that I can use concerning those topics, but I believe something like that should come included in the $300 course

Yeah, probably not tied together well enough.

It was "here's all the theory. Now here's a bunch of tactics, which I am not going to bother relating back to the theory." Not straightforward.

So, an update would basically be:

  • Theory Item 1: specifically how to achieve this, with steps + tactics
  • Theory Item 2: ditto
  • Theory Item 3: ditto

Etc., etc.

Perhaps with a unified central charisma model to work off of, similar to SAC from One Date.

Probably what I will do is sit down, organize the tactics and theory into some step-by-step game plans, and shoot a "how to / tying it all together" video to add in as a Lesson 5.

Anyone else reading: if there's other stuff you think we need in the charisma course, let me know now, and I'll see if I can fit it into an update.

Re: contradictory statements:

Edit:

Also, there were a few statements that seem to directly contradict what the articles have said.


1. Charismatic signal #25 says you should be speaking 75% of the time to be charismatic.

But I’ve read over and over in GC that she should be the one putting the effort into the conversation, while you sit and ask probing questions. Adhering to the Law of Least Effort. What changed?

Her putting in effort gets her invested and leads to her opening up more, bonding her to you more.

You doing most of the talking makes you more charismatic and gives you more direct control over the content of the conversation, which is useful for things like seeding things or hard leading/reframing her thinking (as you can do with sex talk).

There's a tradeoff here, where you need to decide which you need more.

I used to always recommend talking less, because with tight fundamentals and all the other stuff you're doing you don't need the charisma boost from talking more, plus the kind of game I teach does not require you to reframe women's realities too aggressively. So you can just kick back and take it easier and let her seduce herself.

However around 2014 or so I started hearing from guys who were saying they did better when they talked more, and one guy on the forum said all the stuff from the site was great, but him following the advice to talk less had messed up his results for a while, until he went back to talking more, which was what came natural to him. So he switched to using the stuff from the site, except he also let himself do all the talking, and his results skyrocketed.

After that I switched to leaving it more in guys' hands whether they did most of the talking or kicked back and let the girl do it.

But yeah, it's down to which you need more + personal preference.

2. You said in Lesson 1 or 2 to not look at the bridge of the nose while making eye contact, but there are many gc articles saying that is the best place to look. Am I missing something?

Bridge of the nose between the eyes is where you look for good, solid, reliable eye contact.

It's perfect for newbies who don't know where to look or for how long, since it gets you eye contacting but takes a lot of the pressure off.

It's also great for advanced guys in novel situations where they may not be sure exactly what to focus on and just want a good solid standard eye contact to use.

For maximum charismatic effect though, you are looking in one specific eye, that gives you that predator / dominant male authority figure feel.

The flip side is it comes off confrontational if you aren't framing it right.

So:

  • Bridge of the nose between the eyes as standard/safe
  • Gazing into the eye recommended in the course for a more potent, powerful (but also a bit riskier) effect

3. Charismatic signal #26 says you should move more, but you have an old gc article on stillness (found by google searching “stillness girlschase”) that says powerful people stay still and calm. I might just not understand this one to be honest

The movement we talk about in #26 is about taking up and moving through space, as well as more hand and foot gestures.

Stillness is not (necessarily) about being motionless. If I am standing in front of you completely motionless, moving only my mouth as I talk to you, it looks weird ("Is he a mannequin?"). Likewise, if I just rush about everywhere, moving in a jittery way, swiveling my head around, well, I am getting a bunch of movement, but I look like a scared rat.

What you want is a hand gesture, followed by stopping; complete physical stillness. Then another hand gesture. Then stillness. Then turn your head deliberately, or walk over there. Pause. Stillness. Then you take a break from the movement, taking up space, in a dominant position, and just suck her in.

But another thing I'll say is you will use different elements of charisma for different things.

If I am speaking to an audience, I will move my hands a lot to keep the audience engaged and looking at me (while keeping my body mostly still, unless I am moving from one place to another).

Early on in a seduction with a woman, I will also be fairly animated with my hands because, again, I am capturing her attention and drawing it in.

However, if I want to make a very important point to the audience, I will become very still, because I know I have their attention and now I want them to focus even more closely.

By the same coin, deep in a seduction, I am going nearly motionless for long stretches, just staring into her eyes, grinning a wide grin at her, and if she also falls motionless and stares back I know she is feeling it.

So here I suppose we'd say:

  • Movement (deliberate, not frenetic) to capture attention and put eyes on you
  • Stillness when you already have a captive audience and want to really up the intensity
Chase
 

Byron

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
187
I would agree with Kaiderman's main points. I think the charismatic archetypes (hero, king, saviour, etc.) helped address that somewhat, but I'd love more of a bridge between theory and tactics. I also think a way to make it more personalised would be helpful (although not essential). Sort of tailoring the signals to you, or working out your own personal charisma to do what you want/to fit the lifestyle goals you have.

I agree that it should be more straightforward, it's a bit disconnected, but overall I loved the course!

Byron
 
Top