# MBTI for "pickup artists" to use



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

I stumbled across this in an ad and found it interesting. Apparently they've started to formulate a specialized MBTI for "women to pick up" or just gain insights regarding a relationship.

Vin DiCarlo Pandora's Box | PUA FORUMS

A torrent can be easily found, for whoever's interested.

From what I've gathered so far, it uses 3 basic attributes:

T/N or Tester/Investor.
Regarding scope, testers are said to be attracted to many guys at once while an investor will generally focus in on one. Testers do more experimentation in the field, for purposes of getting different kinds of emotional stimulation from different sources, and/or validation. Investors hone in for the perfect relationship, looking for/rationalizing potential, and then may take on the challenge of fixing/nursing some aspect of the guy (which apparently becomes less interesting for her if she's actually successful in doing so)

D/J or Denier/Justifier.
Regarding sexual experience, deniers are said to do more blocking-out of it mentally, while justifiers lower its significance in a way. The way this psychology affects this realm is that it stereotypically means fewer sexual partners for deniers, who are also said to have the most extreme fantasies.

R/I or Realist/Idealist.
Realists have a healthy fear of not finding a man to support them, and might focus more on advancements in their career etc. Often have a more built-up reservoir of self-sufficiency to fall back on. Idealists want the "happy family in a house with a white picket fence." They have vivid imaginations, though are clear on their vision for the future.


So then from there, they decided on the 8 sort of character-archetypes, just like in Myers Briggs:

TDI "playette"
TJI "social butterfly"
NDI "hopeful romantic"
NJI "cinderella"
TDR "private dancer"
TJR "seductress"
NDR "connoisseur"
NJR "modern woman"


I think in my experience I've probably gotten to understand NDIs and NJIs the most, having likely been relatively closest to those types.

I'd also think that type-crossover would be more feasible with this, than with MBTI.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think the easiest way to look at this (this thread has come up a few times before) is to recognize that, in general, these are most personas (meaning social roles, or forms of impression management) and less psychological inevitabilities, despite what Vin and company try to say. If you really wanted to get to know someone though, in fact, MBTI might be the better path because at least then you could extrapolate what they are not (i.e. INFP may bristle at uber-Te-ness -- that tells you more about someone than they invest and deny etc). Because the real underlying question is not how does the person behave in x situation, but why? Vin gets into all this quasi-scientific evolutionary mumbo-jumbo rather than just exploring the basic reasons a person may feel the need to act out (or not act out) in a given circumstance. Maybe they just don't want to be like their parents. Maybe they have been raised under strict religious upbringings. Maybe they think by acting a certain way certain results will arise. If you get to the why and less on the what you're in a much better position.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

This is amazing, can't wait until I'll get my hands all over it so I could tell basics of this system!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of NLP (interesting ideas but not at all convinced of its real world effectiveness) and certainly not a fan of Ross Jeffries or that school (though he is quite literate in analytical psych), but I do think that there are some real lessons to learn from the approach that focuses more on understanding what is really going on with a person beneath the surface rather than focusing on surface qualities (it's just too bad he applies it for all the wrong reasons). In contrast, Vin sort of walks the fence, by trying to present a quasi-psychological theory that explains motivations for behavior but then also slithering his way out by saying "oh but these types are situational." That (1) proves that these are personas not types or anything more than roles a woman (or man for that matter because the system can be turned inside out) can play in a moment and (2) absolves him from having these archetypes of his stand up to any real scrutiny. The only standard by which to judge a person's category is that of the PUA (who likely is not seeing the big picture anyway and is self-interested). 

It's almost as if someone wanted to come up with a metric for nightclub or casual dating personas that people put on (Kiersey goes clubbin'), which might be okay for a quick way of sorting or categorizing, but falls apart quickly when it comes to actually getting to know the person (which is the real focus anyway). You start going into a relationship with all that Tester-Denier-Idealist craziness and you will be in for a rude awakening when the person does not live up to your preconceived notions of who they are. I think, like most other things out there its just a tool. Take it for what it is, not for too much.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

I have never heard of this before, I took the link to the site and found myself listening to some "video" of the origins of the system. I wanted to vomit at the language used and the simple idiocy. 
I mean no offense to the OP of course,
If you want a woman, it's simple. Talk to us, there are no tricks, be open, forward, not weird. Try to make us laugh, be confident. Don't be anything than what you are. This guy I guess has some of it right. The only difference is that he is packaging it in some way that some dillweeds listen to it. He says "act confident". How about you just be confident? Women are just like you, they like their ego stroked a little.


Yes, we are human. Usually when someone tells us something, we hope they are telling us the truth, and we hope that they aren't pretending to be something they aren't. Why would anyone try to be anything else unless they were some kind of sociopath. When you use someone else for your own selfish reasons (YES! Even when it's a woman) without regard or concern for their feelings or what will happen to them as a result of those actions, that makes you a cruel, careless sociopathic person. End of story. A woman is more than a "pussy", and certainly more than a "playette, social butter fly" and so on.

This whole system was made by an insecure ape who is teaching boys who are insecure play on the insecurities of women. Woot. Big men.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm an NJR/modern woman. I've seen this before, and I was interested in it because of the personality theory aspect. 

However, it disgusted me to find that PUAs were carrying their sick little sex game manipulations this far. For fucks sake, those poor Cinderellas. They are my idealistic cousins, after all.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Oh, btw for any morally bankrupt person of the male persuasion, or just a normal person interested in what these individual personalities "mean", this a better link than what the OP provided:

Cold Reading. 

The best way to fight the enemy is to know him, ladies.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

LOL just do a google search for The Octoberman Sequence...


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

This thread seems to have already stirred things up a little bit roud:

In all seriousness I think there are a lot of good points brought up, mainly that a tool such as this system should be used appropriately as what it is, nothing more (and in the right, non-abusive hands). If taken too seriously as fact more than theory, reality starts being ignored in favor of deluded ideals or rigidly categorized fantasy, which is often selfish in nature. The same can be said for MBTI, though something like Pandora obviously hasn't been developed to nearly the same degree.

However, regarding social strategies, this seems to at least open up to further tendencies that people (women) have in a systematically organized way (though it may be far from perfect). It poses ideas for how to deal with them.
At least as an INTP (which is arguably a more accurate yet equally dehumanizing label as "social butterfly"), this kind of Si-based language which can be further experimented on using intuitive thinking, is totally our element.

It might look like I'm "arguing for it," talking like it's indeed hailed as some magical savior for downtrodden losers and/or scumbags. Don't get me wrong, it probably is, in the real world.
I'll probably just try its theory lightly and see how it can be applied (regardless of its associated community), since this kind of thing is at least complete accessible analysis-thought candy. Building up normal social skills and then tacking on some nifty framework-perspectives for potential use can't hurt, as long as there's awareness of the reality.

Also, seeing people mechanically doesn't necessarily have to be limiting or humanity-destroying, as shown in this forum by everyone wielding the usefulness of theory. It can get you closer to reaching "more perfect relationships" and all that.


----------



## Lucky Luciano (Nov 28, 2013)

GYX_Kid said:


> I stumbled across this in an ad and found it interesting. Apparently they've started to formulate a specialized MBTI for "women to pick up" or just gain insights regarding a relationship.
> 
> Vin DiCarlo Pandora's Box | PUA FORUMS
> 
> ...


lol, all you need is to smile and give her a flower


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Lucky Luciano said:


> lol, all you need is to smile and give her a flower


It's a fantastic example of over-complicating things.


----------

