Reflections On The Nature Of Game

by Frost on September 28, 2011

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

jordan gaza December 1, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Finally, I found something on the internet criticizing “game”. Great article. Best wishes to you.

Johnathan October 5, 2011 at 11:17 pm

There seems to be a lot of confusion around the concept of faking yourself. The example you give is not one of faking oneself, but merely of not obeying an impulse. Of course, none of us could or should obey every impulse or urge that happens to pass through our heads. For one thing, we often have multiple and conflicting urges, so which one should we obey? Many of our impulses are self-destructive, too, and I doubt even the most ardent advocate of being oneself would say we should obey those urges Clearly, judgement is needed.

The error is of conflating being oneself with obeying every momentary impulse. The two are not logically equivalent.

Faking means pretending to others that you feel or think in ways that you do not. The point here is that the judgement and opinion of others matters more than the reality of who you are. The implication is that the judgement and opinion of others is more important than your judgement and opinion. It means the value system of another is more important than your own.

Faking has as its reference point the opinion of others; its entire purpose is to affect the opinions of others. The implication is that the opinion of others matters to you. The implication is that you need something from others, their good opinion.

Surely everyone can agree that needing the good opinion of others is incompatible with self-confidence? Surely everyone can agree that seeking the good opinion of others is a form of supplication?

Sometimes what you refuse to do is even more eloquent than what you do. By refusing to seek the good opinion of women you telegraph a powerful message that you do not need her approval or good opinion. Ironically, precisely this is impressive. Standing in specific ways designed to look powerful, or pretending anger or aloofness to appear superior, communicates that you are seeking others good opinion and approval.

Simply standing any way which feels comfortable to you without worrying about sends a different message; one of indifference and independence. Simply expressing whatever emotion you feel without worrying about sends a message of indifference and independence as well. There are countless guys trying to impress her with how aloof they are, or how witty and charming they are, or how they are such wonderful talkers – they are all communicating that they need her to approve of them. She has seen it all before. You will be the one guy who does – nothing. Or at least, nothing special or premeditated. You simply are. Now tell me, which is more impressive?

And that is the crux of the matter; the essential attribute of the confident person is that he does not worry about how others perceive him. That is the essential paradox of faking confidence. Faking is an action designed to manipulate how others perceive you, yet confidence involves not worrying about how others perceive you. Faking confidence is a complete oxymoron.

Bad body language comes from worrying about how others perceive you. The solution is to cease caring how others see you and just stand any which way. This way you relax and your body communicates clearly and powerfully your state of mind; indifference to how others see you. This is what confidence looks and feels like.

The solution to bad body language is most emphatically not to begin worrying even more about how others see you and try to adopt a specific stance. That is merely compounding the problem.

In a nutshell, that is the problem with game; it suggests the cure to lack of confidence (which is essentially over-concern with how others see you) is to care even more about how others see you. Game detects a very real problem but merely compounds it.

Johnathan October 5, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Frost, your definition of game is a childish logic game. The fact of the matter is there exist multiple schools of thought on what sort of men women are attracted to. One school of though is the *nice guy* school, which is the diametric opposite of game. Game arose as a distinct school of thought about what sort of men women are attracted to. Central to game theory is the concept of the alpha male. Any theory about what women find attractive that does not revolve around the concept of the alpha male is not game. Further, game believes that the alpha male behaves in certain specific, set ways, and that men can become attractive to women by adopting these behaviors.

According to your definition of game, *nice guy* behaviors can be game, if proven to work, and *not shitting in your pants* can be game, too. What is the point of such a definition?

Nothing in your definition of game shows that the concept of the alpha male has any validity, or that men can become attractive by adopting the behaviors of the alpha male. Yet this is precisely what most men wish to know. In fact, your definition of game does not even show that any behaviors successfully attract women. Your definition is not really a *definition* – it is a naming convention. If successful behaviors existed, we would call them game.

So what is the point of denying that game refers to a specific school of thought and claiming that game refers to behaviors once they have been proven to be successful? I hope you do not think you have shown that there are behaviors which succeed in attracting women, or have shown what such behaviors are? Clearly, you have shown neither.

Greg September 29, 2011 at 7:22 pm

Just a few words on authenticity

Authenticity does not entail blindly following our impulses, but it does entail using our own judgement and value system to choose which of our (often multiple and conflicting) impulses we should follow. If we know doing something will make a girl like us, but its against our own values, doing it anyways cannot help but lower our self-esteem.

I believe women look not so much for specific behaviors as for intangibles like congruence, decisiveness, and naturalness in behavior – all these things come from having the immense, almost vanishingly rare, courage to refuse to fake our emotional state and state of mind.

If you try to pretend you are angry when you are not, you will be the opposite of congruent. If you act on your own judgement (without thinking of whether others will approve or not), you will be decisive. If you dont seek to hide your emotional state, you will be natural, decisive, congruent, and confident.

It does not really matter what you feel, it merely matters that you do not fake it. Even fear and anxiety, if you are honest about it, will come off as more congruent and natural, and more worthy of respect, than the repression of fear. Trying to fake confidence when you are trembling inside is nightmarish, an experience we are all familiar with, and the more we do it the greater the anxiety becomes. One of the proven methods for overcoming fear of public speaking is to accept the fear and not fight, which often dissolves it.

Consider this idea, Frost – you have a hard time making eye contact, a form of social anxiety, because you are terrified that you might not live up to this persons expectations of you, that who you *are* isnt enough. Freed from this fear, free to simply be yourself, your social anxiety would dissolve. It would not *matter* what you did. It is your sense that you have to *perform* in a way that you might not be able to that is creating your social anxiety.

But if you were not afraid of expressing who you are, you might not have any social anxiety at all. But doing that is extremely tough and takes immense courage.

Something to think about, at any rate.

bagmoth September 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm

I started reading about game when I was 17. Imediately I was impressed, after a few months I started applying what i learned. I couldnt believe how easy it was, the results were staggering. However I always had that feeling that I was being dishonest. To the women I was interacting with and to myself. I didn’t care, I was getting laid.

This however, puts a completely new spin on it. To sum it up game is basically; quit being a pussy. Don’t take any shit, be confident- be a man. Even if you are faking it, so what? You are improving yourself.

If someone who is chronically an asshole to everyone tries to improve himself by being nice, is he faking it? Probably. All his instincts are telling him to punch you in the face, but he fakes it and takes the high-road.

Basically, I have never looked at faking it as a good thing until now. Definetly a thought-provoking post.

ezra moon September 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm

If Game is simply a set of actions and behaviours that increase a man’s pool of women and his chances with each of them, then GAME works and there is no possible way you can be fake. Is a tennis player who works on his backhand a couple of hours a day, twisting and tweaking it to perfection, considered a fake. No he is seen as a man trying to improve his skills, not a whole lot different than a guy practising “Game”.

The only factor that comes into play when Gaming is the fact that we are working with people’s emotions in a field where there are no set of rules and regulations (and no people to enforce them). This leads to the weak/poor/uneducated being much more prone to the influence of someone who is out to do damage. This is why most people might look down on Game or seduction, and label other people fake and trying to pray on the innocent.

(r)Evoluzione September 28, 2011 at 1:49 pm

“I started making a conscious effort to train myself to make strong eye contact. I changed. Was this inauthentic? Was I trying to impress people by being fake? Absolutely.”

This seems counterintuitive. I get that you’re trying to impress people by holding eye contact longer. Yet eye contact is one of the most authentic gestures we can make. How can holding eye contact be inauthentic?
I’m of the ‘fake-it-till-you-make-it’ camp; eventually these concepts are deeply integrated and “game becomes you,” in every sense. We fail the first three times we try most things but eventually get it right, nail the tone, the body language, et cetera. That doesn’t come from inauthenticity, but exactly opposite–it comes from embodying these principles.As you said, they are synonmymous with good social skills.

Tschafer September 28, 2011 at 10:10 am

“Game is synonymous with good social skills”

This is well stated, and if more advocates of game would frame the issue like this, a lot of doubters and nay-sayers would see the light. Game makes both men and women happier, more attractive, and better able to form lasting relationships (if that is what is desired). And who could possibly be against that? (except feminists of course…)

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: