Confidence is overrated as an attractive quality

Posted: February 26, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

When people talk about the qualities that a woman finds attractive in a man, again and again confidence comes out at the top of the list. I disagree. I don’t think confidence is nearly as much of an attractive quality as people believe.

This is a pretty bold statement which flies in the face of what people ‘know’ to be true about attraction, so let me explain.

Firstly, some level of confidence is important in bedding lots of women. Without confidence you won’t be able to approach and escalate (and therefore subsequently fuck) attractive women. In addition to this, a man that lacks confidence with women will often be perceived as creepy by the women they approach. Being nervous around women will turn them off, but this does not mean that being confident around them will turn turn them on. So confidence is just something that is needed to stop a man acting in an unattractive manner that will put women off, but it is not something that in of itself will attract women.

So if confidence is important, aren’t I just nit picking over small details when I differentiate between lacking confidence being unattractive rather than having confidence creating attraction? I don’t think so, because an over reliance on confidence as the be all and end all of attracting women leads many men to reach for the wrong goals and to dismiss other things which will increase their attractiveness to women.

An example of this is the common community response when told that increasing your physical attractiveness is key to bedding more / hotter women. Guys will typically say stuff like, “No, it’s not the looks that do it; that’s a placebo. It’s the confidence that results from looking better. This means increasing physical attractiveness is a crutch”. People read this and decide that taking steps to increase their physical attractiveness is a waste of time, and instead partake on mental masturbation filled inner game ‘journeys’ in order to obtain the magical, cure-all-your-women-problems gift of confidence.

Physical attractiveness is very important in getting women into bed, especially so when it comes to cold approaching in clubs. I’ve seen evidence of this with my own eyes, again and again. I’d rather look like a male model and have moderate confidence, than look average and have amazing confidence. No contest.

Also what I’ve seen again and again is that once you have what it takes to approach with a modicum of confidence, increasing the confidence of your approach to the point where you do heroic, ‘balls of steel’ style approaches makes no difference to your success. This is because the extra level of confidence you show does not cause the girl you approach to feel more attracted to you. An couple of examples:

  1. You and your wing spot a 3 set near the bar in a club you go and stand near them, and talk to each other. After a few minutes you turn to one of the girls and say, “Hey, how’s it going?”. This doesn’t require balls of steel.
  2. You are in the club and you spot a mixed 5 set seated in a booth. There’s a hot girl in the set. You don’t wait for a situation where it’s easier to approach her (e.g. she goes to the toilet), instead you steam straight in and go direct on her, loud and proud in front of all her friends. You win over all her friends with witty conversation, and AMOG any cock blocking beta male friends. This requires balls of steel.

The second approach is much harder in terms of the confidence needed to pull it off, but this display of extra confidence will not help make the girl attracted to you. Despite this, many guys are determined to get the confidence needed to do this type of approach. Being able to do this becomes more important to them than actually getting laid, and they start dismissing easier sets which are much more likely to result in a lay.

I believe that focusing on getting confident is a false goal in PUA, and is one that lead me astray. Focus on getting laid. Make that your sole goal when out sarging (other self improvement is obviously a great thing, but sarging in the club is neither the time nor the place to be thinking about that) to be getting a girl home and fucking her. Nothing else. You aren’t there to learn. You aren’t there to get confidence. You aren’t there to work on your self esteem. You aren’t there to have fun (although sarging is fun IMO). You’re there for the pussy.

This will get you laid the quickest. By following this goal you will most quickly see what works and what doesn’t when it comes to getting laid, and you’ll end up getting laid quicker than if you focus on other goals (like being confident, being Mr. Popular, being smooth, not being ‘that’ creepy guy). What you’ll then learn is that there is no quicker way to confidence with women than experiencing success with women. So you’ll actually gain this confidence faster than if you made confidence itself the goal.

I’ll leave you with a quote from a post by Alek Novy which talks about how people may be mistaken in thinking that confidence is highly attractive to women.

So, what gamers(and their apologists) are truly observing (but not intelligent enough to infer), is not that women are attracted to ‘confidence’ per se(as an independent variable).

But, rather that the men who tend to be successful with women in the first place(for whatever reason), also have a high confidence(justified expectation) of future(continued) success.

Stop putting the cart before the horse…


Stats since 1st Feb:
1 number closes
3 kiss closes
0 f closes

  1. Jim says:

    Great post. Once again you have sharply articulated what I was groping towards in my own vague thinking.

    What are your thoughts on at exactly what level a lack of confidence becomes a problem in picking up women?

    And where do you think social confidence actually comes from?

    ‘What women want’ is a discussion that could go one forever without anyone being able to prove their arguments due to all the confounding factors. Look at the lengths scientists had to go to try and discern what (if any) type of dancing was actually attractive to women.

    • betatopua says:

      >What are your thoughts on at exactly what level a lack of confidence becomes a problem in picking up women?

      If you can’t regularly approach and escalate on women, or your approach is so nerve wracked that you come across as creepy or too timid. The point is some people want to do really daring approaches (like an HB9 surrounded by a group of AMOGs). If you can do those, great, but that fact that you can’t isn’t going to stop you regularly getting laid, as there are plenty of easier sets. Some guys want to be able to approach any time in any situation. A crowded tube train is a good example. I’m not confident enough to approach on a crowded tube, but since I can on the street (mostly) and in a club, my success won’t be negatively effected.

      I’ve got to the point now where any increase in confidence is going to bring me massively diminishing returns to my success with women. I’m just now starting to get an idea of what my new sticking points are (post coming soon) and it’s not lack of confidence.

      >And where do you think social confidence actually comes from?

      I believe confidence in any area comes from perceived confidence in that area. In addition to this a person may appear confident in an endeavor despite lacking perceived confidence if they don’t care about the outcome. For example playing poker. I have seen people play very confidently despite being crap at it because no real money was involved, so they don’t care if they lose. If large amounts of money become involved their lack of competence would start to worry them and they wouldn’t seem confident any more.

      So social confidence boils down to either expecting a good outcome in social situations, or not caring what the outcome is at all.

      • Jim says:

        I agree with everything you’ve written. I think half the problem is that guys confuse approaching in general with confidence.

        Yeah, there are plenty of community guys who approach a lot but still in general come across as less confident than the average bloke. On the flip side of this there are many men that are generally quite confident, but would never do a cold street approach.

        I think approaching is a bit similar to giving a speech, except that your audience is almost always polite when you give a speech, whereas girls (and their friends) can be downright hostile when you approach them. This is why approaching is emotionally taxing (like making cold sales calls). Fair enough too, because if pretty girls didn’t take this emotional stick out of the cuboard sometimes they would be approached by an endless stream of men who don’t really have anything going for themselves in life.

        I can’t prove it, but I think you can tell how cool someones life is within about 30 seconds of talking to them (in about 90% of cases). Once a guy has gotten past being able to approach it is this (and his looks) that determine whether or not the girl wants him.

        I’m sure you’ve watched some episodes of ‘Keys to the VIP’. In that you will see loads of good looking guys get nowhere, because they have shit boring lives. You’ll see other similar looking guys cleaning up.

        From what I’ve seen of Keys to the VIP, the good looking guys who fail to score make themselves seem like fuckwits the second they open their mouths. They are too cheesy, try hard and over the top. I think it is this more than lack of an interesting life.

        I think a problem with the seduction community is that many people try to come up with a sort of unified theory of attraction. I think PUAs need to accept that there is no one thing that causes a woman to become attracted to a man. There are a number of attributes, both physical and in terms of personality, and how much they matter, or if they matter at all depends on the specific women. Also some traits may be important to a woman looking for a boyfriend, but matter less if the woman is just seeking casual sex, and visa versa. This means you can’t really come up with a list of things a man has to be in order to be considered attractive.

        For example you have good looks, interesting life, sense of humor, social skills, leadership / alphaness / ability to get what he wants, verbal skills, status, wealth, kindness, ability to emotionally connect with the girl, emotional solidness (you are calm and centered as her emotions run wild, the rock in her storm), communicating that they are a sexual being, popularity / extroversion…

        All of these traits will have a differing impact on different woman (from nothing through to strong attraction), and may even differ based on the exact situation (e.g. ONS vs LTR). This is why PUAs have a hard time explaining why they say you have to be alpha, and then guys get success without being alpha, or being alpha actually kills a guys chances with some girls. You only need a small number of these traits, and with them you will attract those women to whom those traits are attractive. You do not need to cultivate them all (Some personality traits may even be mutually exclusive. A good example is how RooshV has to massively change his character to get laid in different countries). I think it’s best to work out which traits are closest to your natural personality and focus on cultivating them and ignoring the others on the whole. This way you will be very polarizing. Some women will love you, others will be repulsed. This actually makes a guys job harder.

        Anyway, the only way I am ever going to find out whether or not any of the above is actually correct is to go out and do it myself.

  2. AlekNovy says:

    I didn’t read everything, I just wanted to correct the citation. I wish I had written that ,but I didn’t. Paragon wrote that, I was merely quoting a comment of his.

    As for logical fallacies in this area – they abound. Guys often come to wrong conclusions through empty correlations and false-positives.

    —Anytime someone tries to sell you “mandatory rules” for pickup, always ask this question—

    -> Has anyone gotten laid without doing that? And if so, how is it mandatory?

    Wannabe expert: If you wanna get laid, you must be alpha!!
    You: Are there guys who aren’t “alpha” but still get laid a ton?

    Wannabe expert: You have to kino a chick in the first 2 minutes, or you will fail at escalating later!!!
    You: Are there guys who don’t kino in the first 2 minutes and still have a ton of success?

    You will find there are massive exceptions to every rule taught by any guru on the planet. Successful guys come in all shapes and sizes and forms and personalities and types. Many guys have opposite approaches but are equally successful.

    From the studies I’ve seen, the only factor that seems to matter is being resistant to rejection and initiative taking. In other words, guys who overcome rejection faster and escalate more will have more results (presuming equal looks). Everything else is subjective and individual. Anything trying to sell additional factors as being mandatory is full of crap.

    There are no universals or “rules”.

  3. Nico says:

    You may want to check out JT’s, the Asian Playboy, PUA bootcamp. I saw him on ABC Nightline and realized that it wasn’t just about getting laid. It was about smashing stereotypes and becoming confident. From what I saw on the Nightline interview of APB, he looked like he really cares about his students

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s