I received this question recently from one of the guys who paid for Telegram Support (a service I’ve introduced where you can pay for direct access to me and I’ll answer your questions in real time):
There was a trick a friend told me about in daygame, called “skeptical parrot “, for guys who are bad at spiking. He said one just contradicts points the girl makes in the convo (eg “are you a mac or windows girl?” “Mac” “you’re totally a windows girl, i can tell because blah blah..”)
What’s your view of this? Haven’t tried it recently but may use it
What he’s described isn’t sceptical parroting, but moreso playful disagreeableness. Parroting is where you say the last word, or last few words, of a sentence back to someone. That makes it their turn in the conversation again and in doing so you encourage them to keep talking and investing. You can make it sceptical by saying the word(s) back to them in a slightly questioning tone to further encourage them to qualify their decision; maybe tilt your head and narrow your eyes a little too to indicate you don’t quite understand them. A simple example would be:
“I study psychology and film.”
“Psychology and film?”
“Well, I chose…”
The key is not to be too qualifying. Don’t make it seem like she’s just said the dumbest thing in the world and now you’re looking at her in disgust. You only want to give her a little encouragement to keep talking about herself and her decisions and from that point allow yourself to be won over to her position. Of course, this technique works best when you truly don’t understand a girl’s decisions and need more information.
And don’t be using this all the time and don’t use it often. Maybe once per set and once you’re into the get-to-know-you stage of it. If you try to qualify a girl too early, and too hard, she’ll think “fuck off, I’m not explaining myself to you: a guy I’ve only just met.” An extreme example of over-qualifying I give to students is to tell them to imagine if a guy approached a girl and his first words were “Hi, tell me three interesting facts about you” and to think what her reaction would be.
Then there’s being playfully disagreeable, which is pretty much what it says on the tin: find an arbitrary point of contention and make a joke out of disagreeing with her. It’s a great way to inject some energy into the conversation and create a joke out of thin air and possibly build some attraction while you’re at it (women tend to like disagreeable men):
“I’m Swedish.”
“What? No. You can’t be.”
“I really am.”
“No, you’re Italian [or any other country she looks like she could be from]. Stop lying to me.”
“Haha, I’m not!”
“You’re not getting this one past me. I’ve got my eye on you.”
(The example in the initial question is another good one of this technique.)
This puts the interaction into a roleplay where you are the detective and she is the suspect (a frame which supports seduction because it positions you as the leader/higher status person*). Just remember to be playful and not aggressive, serious and/or truly accusatory. This is supposed to be fun.
* This is an error that many beginners and lower intermediates make: they tell a story or create a roleplay where they position her higher than him e.g. he’s an onlooker and she’s setting a world record for shopping, walking fast/slow, looking French, etc. Always try to position yourself as higher than her in any imagined scenario, so for example you’re not an onlooker anymore, you’re part of Oxford Street Police Department (OSPD) and she’s not carrying enough shopping bags to be allowed on the street (yes that’s a lame example, but you get the point).
Yours unfaithfully,
Thomas Crown
If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in making future content then please consider buying one of my books or hiring me for coaching. Follow me on Twitter for daily updates. Click on the links below to find out more. > Buy the best of Thomas Crown, Volume One > Hire me for consultations, infield coaching and Telegram support |
Thomas Crown PUA 