Non-Cumulative Deception: The Threesome Heuristic

Last week I wrote about the idea of “non-cumulative deception.” This is the notion that you are better off leaving a really strong deceptive methodology on its own, rather than combining it with another method that’s not’s strong. Even if—theoretically—that would add some level of deception to the experience.

For example, if I could show you my empty bedroom, close the door, then make an elephant appear in the room, that would be an amazing trick. But if I did some mathematical force of the number 5 on you. And then had you count to the 5th letter in the alphabet. Then think of “any animal that begins with that letter.” And then I made your “freely thought of animal” appear in my room. That would be weaker than just making the elephant appear with no force. Because the weak force undermines the whole thing. Not just the force itself.

I got a couple emails asking how that idea meshes with an earlier post of mine about the Importance of Combing Methods. In that post I talk about when we tested marked cards and a peek blindfold separately and then together. And how together they were significantly more deceptive than they were apart.

I can see how these ideas might seem at odds. The distinction here is that in the “Non-cumulative Deception” post I was talking about the problem of pairing a strong method with a weak or average method. In the other post, I was talking about combing two “okay” methods. (Marked decks and see-thru blindfolds can be powerful methods, but they’re not overly deceptive when used on their own in a straightforward manner.)

Here’s a heuristic to use that I think helps clarify when you should combine methods, and what types of methods to combine.

Imagine you’re a guy who is interested in the idea of a threesome. It’s not your sole over-riding passion to have a threesome. But you’re definitely interested.

Now, let’s say I found a woman or a man (whatever you’re into) that wanted to have sex with you. And this person was a 10 out of 10 in the looks department.

I ask if you want to have sex with them, and you say, “Yes, please.”

“And,” I tell you, “her friend wants to join in as well.” And I introduce her friend who is a 9.

“That is very acceptable,” you say.

But what if her friend is an 8? Or a 7? Or a 6 in your eyes?

At some point there’s going to be a number where the other person isn’t additive to this sexual encounter. Their presence would take away from your experience with the 10.

Now imagine I say, “Hey, this 5 wants to get with you. And so does this other 5.” You would possibly find that to be a much more exciting experience than just being with the single 5.

So adding a 5 might detract from the experience of being with a 9 or 10. But being with two fives might be exponentially better than just being with a single 5.

It’s not a perfect analogy, especially for the incels that read this site, but some might find it helpful when deciding on what kinds of methods to combine.

• Avoid garbage methods, of course. Any combination of truly bad methods will just end up being a shit stew.

• Feel free to combine “okay” methods in hopes of uncovering some sort of powerful amalgamation that is much more than the sum of its parts.

• Of course combining very strong methods would be the most powerful course of action.

• But try to avoid combining a strong method with an okay one. Rather than the strong method propping up the okay one, you will often be introducing a “flaw” for them to focus on that wouldn’t be there if you just ran with the strong method on its own.