Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Supple Cow
Oh, I understood perfectly what he meant to say. I just chose to respond to what he actually said. I think a person's vocabulary can sometimes be revealing about their fundamental ideals and outlook. I'm not going to nit-pick and point a finger over word choice for the sake of nit-picking and pointing a finger, but you have to admit that this particular word struck more than one person as a peculiar choice. I bet after all the responses to it he got in this thread, he'll think twice the next time he's about to say it. Or not. Whether this makes him say it more or less doesn't even matter - I'm pretty sure he'll at least be thinking about it with a new perspective after this.
|
That's a good point to make, I just found it objectionable because you were attributing mbchills mindframe to a set of social tools people use to interact with others. The scene that most heavily uses these tools has, in general, a skewed(self-centered?) perspective on human interaction, but these social tools/aids/techniques are fairly benign and harmless in themselves. Their use does not a player make.
Quote:
Anyway, my main point still stands...
What you describe is still turning an attempt to connect with another human being into a game (in the bad way). I'm all for the spirit of competition and such - I'm an ultimate frisbee player and we have that whole "spirit of the game" thing going - but I think the whole concept of "game" (as in the dating scene) is an inefficient tool. Or maybe it's just the wrong tool for the task.
I'll tell you straight up, mbchills: If you approach the situation playing games, the only girls who will take the bait are girls who play games... that means you can't be surprised when they play games with you! What incentive have you given them to be honest or straightforward? None. No surprises here.
|
I'm having trouble getting a picture of what you think "the game" is. What i'm getting right now is that you liken it to a war- a battle of wits and deception to trick the other person into dating you; instead of a playful flirtation that demonstrates to the other social skill, a sharp mind, and confidence in yourself.
A person's game is not a mindset of how to treat the world and others, but a collection of social tools and abilities that help that person flirt, communicate, or interact with another person that they find interesting. Social skill is essential for functioning well in society and those who study it and play with the nuances are just using it at a different level. I have no doubt in my mind that you have unconsciously learned and picked up many social tools during your lifetime, that allow you to deal effectively and courteously with many different types of people. If you can even maintain a normal conversation you have learned a great deal about human interaction and how to communicate. There are many people who have great difficulty picking up on these social cues that come naturally to others, and of these people, there are those who will study social skills in an objective manner in order to be able to interact with others in a positive way, in order to better themselves.
I don't see how "game" is an ineffecient tool for the job of interaction. The way i'm seeing you describe game is that it's a mindframe of "beat or be beaten", and that anything used in context of "game" is fake, manipulative, or deceptive in some manner. This is probably the foundation of my disagreement with you. If you define "game" as the social tools you utilize to deal with other people, it contains none of the harmful attributions you've given it. In the context of attraction, it is not just a tool to be used, it encompasses all interaction with the person you're attracted to. You don't turn your game on in order to "pick up a chick". You use it every time you talk to someone, or meet the eyes of another, or just when you walk around in a public area. It is not an option to be used, it is all your social understanding together.
You use game when you flirt with a guy. Your body language, speech, laugh, tone of voice, it is all part of what you've learned to be effective in attracting another. Where you've caught on unconsciously to these things, the people who you've defined as "using game" actively study these things and break them down to component parts and analyse them to understand them better. They use the understanding to form techniques that are as effective or more effective than what they've observed. Even in the context of your definition, using game is more effective in seduction/attraction than natural learning.
I agree that it is not effective for intimacy or commitment, which are foundations for long lasting relationships, (well they are at least according to sternberg). because attraction is fickle and if the people are not compatible they will not stay together for long- and social skill/game will not make up for personality or character flaws in an appreciable manner.
Wow, this sure turned into a rant. I guess what i'm trying to say is that having "game" and being honest and straightforward are not mutually exclusive. The problems come when you attract someone by pretending you're someone you're not, and that truth is later revealed to the one you've attracted. And even if it is not revealed, you're still unhappy because to keep the girl you have to maintain the facade. I don't think it's a matter of "playing the game", but of avoiding lying to yourself about who you are and who you want to be.