You have a point with knowing when to ignore beauty and when to pay attention.
As for methods vs no methods, they're not mutually exclusive, you need to develop the lens to notice scenarios to act upon until it becomes natural and 'instinct'.
You gotta make it seem like it 'just happened' (have I said this before? oh).
Refer to the
Hierarchy of Competence.
Quote:1. Unconscious incompetence
The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.
2. Conscious incompetence
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3. Conscious competence
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.
4. Unconscious competence
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.
Supplementary links and resources at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
You are as confident as your familiarity of your situation (for 95% of people) and if you're in the other 5% of delusionally confident, you run the risk of not responding to the feedback of your actions to spur improvement.
I really disagree with the premise of this post because you need to learn techniques and frameworks to operate off until you internalize the skills.
And no, they are not mutually exclusive or binary.
You can run methods, still be confident and rely on certain gambits or tidbits to keep you going. If you ever train a guy, you will notice his strengths and weaknesses.
Playing to his strengths will get him laid but you can't ignore his weaknesses outright. He needs to supplement his weaknesses to the point where they don't interfere with his strengths.
Simply put, it doesn't fuck with the flow of start -> finish; start = first interaction/eye contact & finish = lay/relationship/self-defined end-game.
To improve such weaknesses, he needs to fake some things or refer to a framework so he is aware and can actively implement change. Otherwise it would not be a weakness and not be a hindrance.
This is a theorical framework. In real life you can tell which guys need game (the roadmaps), which guys don't and which have mastered it to a point where they are comfortable to get laid.
The common denominator is that it's always the man's responsibility for getting or not getting laid.
This is a macro outlook to understand the importance of micros (the stuff you practice until it's instinct).
You can't automatically read body language unless you have specialized in that/play poker/do interrogation -> you still learned it.
You can't automatically tamper with flow and energy levels with your voice or conversation without engaging in 1000s of conversations with that end-goal or being in a place of authority -> you still learned it.
I could go on and on.
You can develop an instinct over time but your focus won't be specific enough to hone the skills and specifically the KILLER instinct. Your subconscious will be ignoring the positive feedback stimulus.
Any person who has become good at a sport can attest to this.
Refer to my post in the irrational confidence section for a primer on how to fake it and become instinctually good. Confidence is the jump off point for everything else.