I watched Todd Valentine approach a woman and thought much of what he was doing made sense. Then I watched the explanation and disagreed with the model he was teaching.
That distinction matters. This episode was a criticism of how one interaction was being explained, not a claim that nothing Todd did worked. In fact, I thought the infield looked much more Straight Line than the verbal decision tree wrapped around it.
The problem, as I saw it, was what a student would carry away in his head.
A model teaches assumptions as well as steps
The model I discussed organised different responses to an opener into branches: a positive response, a test, a logical response or a rejection. Depending on what happened, the man would qualify, respond, try again or move to another part of the structure.
My first reaction was that this gave the beginner a lot to process. He was already nervous. Now he had to classify the response, choose the correct branch and deliver the right answer while holding a conversation.
But the deeper objection was the assumption underneath it: if an interaction did not go anywhere, perhaps he had failed to find the correct move. There must have been another answer that would have turned it around.
That can put the student in a permanent audition. Every response becomes a test of whether he deserves another moment of attention. He works harder and harder on passing instead of asking whether there is a mutual opportunity worth pursuing.
Attraction and logistics give you a simpler question
My emphasis was on attraction and logistics. Is there mutual interest? Is there a realistic opportunity to spend time together?
You can express that you find a woman attractive without launching a complicated performance. If she wants to engage, the interaction can develop. If she does not, you can leave it there. You do not need to regard that as a personal defeat you must reverse.
This is what I mean by being able to say “next.” It describes your willingness to move on, not a judgement that a woman is defective because she did not want you.
The same applies to logistics. She may enjoy the conversation and still need to catch a flight, meet a friend or return to work. Her schedule is not evidence that your verbal skill failed. A mutually wanted alternative plan may make sense; otherwise there is nothing to rescue.
Do not add a test when the interaction is already moving
One specific objection in the podcast concerned inserting qualification automatically after a positive response. Why create another verbal hurdle merely because the diagram says that is the next box?
If the conversation is already enjoyable, pay attention to where it can naturally go. Make an invitation. Find out whether she wants it. Do not introduce complexity simply to demonstrate that you know how the system is supposed to sound.
Of course, attraction is not blanket agreement. A smile, a blush or a date invitation does not establish consent to physical contact or sex. Each person still gets to choose what happens next.
My argument was that a useful model should reduce the burden on the student while keeping him attentive to those real choices. It should help him express interest and recognise a match, rather than convince him every stranger contains a lock he is responsible for picking.
Watch the behaviour and examine the explanation separately. A man can perform a skill well and still give you an unnecessarily complicated account of why it worked. Learn the part you can use, and question the assumptions the explanation is putting into your head.
