are attainability and value always correlated?

i noticed this: when attainability goes up, perceived value goes down. when perceived value goes up, attainability goes down.

are there any situations where this does not apply?

On another note, what happens with attainability and value in this situation?

Girl: are you good at cooking?
Fog: lets just say that when it comes to frozen dinners, they want me on iron chef

Click to expand...

if you qualify to her [which is bad], your value goes down and your attainability goes up. A self deprecating remark is used in situations where you need to reduce your value and increase your attainability. In this situation, you get a value increase and an attainability decrease from not submitting to her qualification. However, because it was done with a self deprecating remark, your value decreases and your attainability increases. Thus, there is very little [if any] change in your value and attainability...right?

Fog-

Right. In most cases that answer is a wash. You self-deprecate, which is -V+A. But at the same time you decline to directly answer her question, which is +V-A.

What you can do in this situation is follow up your self-deprecation with something tailored to what you need. Like so:

• Her: Are you a good cook?
  Fog: Let's just say when it comes to frozen dinners, they want me on Iron Chef.
  Her: [laughs]
  Fog: No, seriously though, I do have a few dishes I'm pretty good at.

In this case, you deflect the screening question with an answer that's a wash for value and attainability. Then you clarify with a statement that is both high attainability (since you came back to give her a genuine answer, and are humble about it -- you didn't need to do that, and it shows respect when you do) and high value (you do actually have some skill in the kitchen).

Here's another version:

• Her: Are you a good cook?
  Fog: Let's just say when it comes to frozen dinners, they want me on Iron Chef.
  Her: [laughs]
  Fog: I'm joking but the truth is I really am a terrible cook. How's your cooking?

Here you actually follow up with a remark that is pure attainability. It's not really low value because you're admitting it in a cool way and you didn't need to admit it. You're also subverting her screen (by not passing it... but only after you've deflected the screen). You give her a genuine response (so it's +A), without changing your value any. This is ideal if your value is already very high and you just need to improve attainability.

One more:

• Her: Are you a good cook?
  Fog: Let's just say when it comes to frozen dinners, they want me on Iron Chef.
  Her: [laughs]
  Fog: I'm kidding; I'm an excellent cook. It's one of my strengths. Why do you ask?

Here it's all value, just telling her you're skilled at something without doing anything to raise attainability (you're not really humble or considerate about it, so no A boost. But you're not a dick about it either; no A penalty). Good for situations where you can tell a girl is grilling you a bit but you're not getting that "I'm interested" vibe from her and she isn't compliant yet.

====

So the breakdown is:

• Deflect her screen with a joke: +V-A
• Use self-deprecation: -V+A
• Net effect: screen neutralized, value-attainability unchanged
• Can then follow up with something that raises value, raises attainability, or both

There are actually more things you can do here. For instance:

• Her: Are you a good cook?
  Fog: Let's just say when it comes to frozen dinners, they want me on Iron Chef.
  Her: [laughs]
  Fog: No, seriously though, I do have a few dishes I'm pretty good at. Slide over here, I'll show you some pictures.
  
  [then pull up pictures of some dishes you've cooked to show her on your phone]

Here you're getting value (good cook), attainability (genuine, humble response), and compliance ("Slide over here"). So you pull off a triple threat: +V+A+C.

Just think of the self-deprecating comment as a wash that deflects the screen, and the real VAC line mover being the thing you follow it up (or don't follow it up) with after.

Chase