RP theory rarely bothers with this because most people get on board fast. "It's not my fault" and "they are fucking horrible bitchez" is enough fuel for the most, and those that resist are told to repeat the mantra.

Why aren't you confident? Before being told to fake it, what is confidence and what is it that keeps you away from it?

I tried to answer these for my self and hopefully I will reach someone who shares the same experiences.

I found TRP 2 years ago, it sent me on a pretty negative path. I saw all the little clues, and after about months of going through my experiences and using RP theory to understand them, I finally became RP after 7-8 months. As in not questioning if it's true or not. Even then there was no practice, most of the anger was gone, but the difference between knowing and doing are colossal and one of the reasons is as you might have guessed, lack of confidence.

I lost interest after a while, still reading from time to time, but the urge to sift through the now rapidly decreasing quality posts went away. I became interested in psychoanalysis and some of the methods and theories there and applied them to my self again, here's what I've found.

The first thing you do when you communicate with the opposite sex is that you treat them like the opposite sex. You objectify them in a loop that you have done your whole life. "She is ugly, ignore", "she is pretty, out of my reach", "she is already busy".

Basically you are being a shitty hunter that internalizes the situation rather than trying to do with what you have. Girls are objects for you to become attached to, they aren't just potentially someone who can tell you the time, or direction, or shares the same interest as you.

Secondly you are coming to conclusions from very limited data, "she is pretty, out of my reach" is not rational unless you actually know through 100s of experiments who is and isn't out of your class, unless you know through your own experience how much your good sense of dressing or grooming or intellect factors into your own value. Your confidence in your own value comes from the fact that you haven't got a clue how much you are worth. It's the same confidence of someone who has got a few bucks and rather than take them to the checkout and be told you don't have enough. Now if you have lot of money at home you can easily do it and be a bit embarrassed, but if it's all you got you might not want to risk the embarrassment of others knowing just how poor you are. Which is the case when you approach someone without knowing your own value.

All of these BP "no confidence" guys, just mean they don't have the confidence to approach someone they want, i.e they don't know if they have the cash to get an item they want. If you told them to approach someone they thought was ugly, they would easily do it if not for not wanting to humiliate them by telling them it's only a joke.

The other side is that girls are measured by their physical attractiveness, not so much for guys, so guys see all these girls and because they rank them as "want" and "don't want", they think girls rank them as such. In fact the value of guys have "low" and "high" based on physical attractiveness, but only through actual interaction can their real value be discovered. "ugly guy with a shitty T-shirt" becomes "confident millionaire who doesn't give a shit", no fucking way the average guy sees someone ugly and think "I wonder if she has other qualities I might like".

So guys already handicap themselves by applying their own standards to women.

One of the other issues is over-empathy, confidence comes from balance of knowledge and action. Without knowledge it's hard to judge, when you have false knowledge you might be more emphatic or less. Like a rich person dismissing the poor or white knight protecting "pure chaste lady". It's true that the rich are often sociopaths and thus doesn't need to be ignorant to be evil, however the difference is best studied in the white knight who suddenly gets super powers when a damsel is in distress. He is unable to speak or approach, but treat his lady bad in the slightest and he will speak up and defend her.

To actually approach a girl then you would need to not be over-emphatic by imagining things such as "will she feel bad for my approach or rejecting me". You don't bother with this because if she is any good she won't be such a bitch, if she is then you have no reason to show empathy. From this knowledge you just need to take action, which is where things get fucked up. How much action and where is it justifiable.

I will show that it isn't about where the action is justifiable, but rather how. Let's take reddits beloved "I don't go to the gym to be ogled that and be approached". Lot of people would agree with this, it sort of makes sense that a place where you go for going about your business is the last place you want to be approached by random people (unless x,y,z).

Let's start with why it's a bother, even if the fraction is small, the sheer number of guys who are confident enough to approach girls of all qualities are countless. These guys don't approach for 50% success rate or whatever "loser" might imagine, they approach if they see something they like and allow other people to make their own decisions. So a year of going to the gym 3 times a week and we are talking about high likelihood of meeting almost all the guys who go there weekly. And that's just gym, forget about workplace, library, cafe or whatever they go.

So creating a boundary for the beta is great, "don't approach girls in the gym, class, library, [anywhere I think I can get away with putting here without being questioned]".

The issue is supposedly the location from what they say and the excuses I gave. Lets be honest, it's almost never the location, you can approach at a dentist if a single mother is taking her son to get his teeth fixed, at her workplace etc. It's about how much value you can demonstrate within the acceptable boundaries. And the boundaries require knowledge which confidence depends on.

Action and knowledge are therefore not separable when talking about approaching, if you know through experience what types of girls are attracted to you, then approaching the opposite might be silly, unless you have set of actions for both the ones who are instantly attracted and those who aren't. Let's call this "But he is more than a jock", the excuse for women who on one end say they hate jocks and on the other side do nothing but fuck them.

The knowledge is necessary unless you want to constantly luck your way through approached, but action is more important. For example the approach at the gym can't come with the propositions "Does she want to fuck me", you will approach it like someone who is looking for a binary answer yes or no. After 1-2 hints you might take your leave. The first being she isn't instantly attracted to you physically "too much muscle, not my type" "don't like gymrats, ugh".

It has to be "can I get her to be attracted to me", the whole "he isn't a jock" comes from this. The guy who acts like that around everyone, but tells her things she wants to hear, is acting based on his knowledge. She hates his type, but he still attracts her.

The problem then with faking confidence is "can I get her to be attracted to me" is translated to "does she want to fuck me", reversing it and giving her the completely control of the outcome. There is no "I", there is no potential or action, just inquiry. They are so low on confidence that they don't understand the concept of confidence in relationship dynamics, only in other more quantitative areas like money and their work etc.

There is no playfulness, no enticing, no trying to see if there are other moves, there is no expectation of binary answer to be delivered. And because of this, the psyche is fucked from the start. Instead of starting of with some knowledge and starting with a light conversation to get a better idea, instead of building repertoire they go full yes or no in their mind.

"Can I get her to be attracted" is a strategy, it has countless moves and even after rejection bunch of people wait at the right moments for that to change (guys who can only get girls at parties and never in public or while they are fully sober and unfunny).

"Maybe I can, let me see if we have anything in common, maybe she is student like me, or maybe she reads like me", but the choking low confidence RPer asks weird questions waiting to be given hints that he is unwanted or welcome. The BP doesn't approach her, thinks of not bothering her etc., but it's the fucking guy who knows hints and positive body and language nuances that get's fucked.

He is just confident enough to go to her, and mistakes that for faking confidence. Faking confidence should IMO come with a caveat, fake it like you actually have it, not just the appearance of confidence, but the same fucking mentality. "I'm not going to give a shit about your answer if you in any way act condescending towards me" is faking confidence, turning it to her is confidence. "Why are you acting all that, you're just a fucking ..." that can only come from someone who is confident he isn't worthless shit, while the previous one was protecting your ego from hurt and not projecting any hostility after receiving it.

I hope I haven't taken too much of your time, please post below, I'm confident this isn't against this subs rules, excuse the PUA like terms.