Definition of Game

Proposed Definition:

“Game is the rhetoric of manliness”, or, “Game is the rhetoric of masculinity.” I like the first one better. Discuss.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Definition of Game

  1. I don’t have a good definition. In the interest of fairness, I’m still waiting on an exemplar. Preferably one from the NT, and very preferably one who isn’t one of the how-to game bloggers, nearly all of whom are openly and proudly heretical or pagan.

  2. I’m probably not the man to offer the definition of game (among other things), but I wouldn’t compare it to rhetoric. I think I would characterize it as a sort of applied psychology. Zippy Catholic compared it to business management techniques as I recall, and I think that is a good fit. Child psychology (if the actual field weren’t such a farce) would be another. It comprises both study and practice. What probably muddies the water is there are the tools themselves (which can be used for good or ill) and there is the baseline knowledge which accompanies them and helps the learner understand how and when to utilize the tools. Hypergamy (as used in the manosphere), fitness testing, and the rationalization hamster are part of the terms associated with the knowledge set. Even the fundamental understanding that women tend to want to swing from partner to partner. That women push for investment/commitment from whichever the man of the day is, but that they will move on in a heartbeat if they think a better opportunity comes along (unless morals prevent this). This is knowledge you won’t generally find outside of the manosphere, and we received it from those teaching game.

    So when someone says Christians need to turn away from Game, what many hear is:

    Forget what you know about women’s nature, forget about fitness testing, forget about the rationalization hamster, etc. and go back to listening to the BS (non biblical) advice from men like the pastor in the latest youtube I shared.

    I don’t think you have this in mind, but I do think it is what many hear.

  3. For the record, that’s not what I mean by my objection. I just don’t have anything but the very dimmest picture of how Christian humility is supposed to fit in with Christian Alpha. You surely must admit that nearly all (and maybe just all, full stop) the replies to ‘where does Jesus fit into this?’ treat him as if he never did anything but root out moneychangers or ride a white horse to trample the earth on the Day of the Lord.

  4. Oh, I know what you mean. I’m the guy who wrote, “Jesus was such a beta that Satan didn’t even bother tempting him with women, in the desert.”

    Then you read Revelations… From a Game perspective: that is some serious aloof Game for 2,000 plus years; then coming in ultimate glory (status) and power to slay the dragon, and collect his bride. It’s chivalry of cosmic proportions.

    As I’ve said before: I don’t like to assume Game, and then interpret scripture from it. I don’t do that, except as a thought exercise; which is all the above is.

    I do try to take Game seriously, though. To my mind: few people do. Maybe that’s just because I’m an arrogant sonuvabitch, but I really they aren’t really weighing the material. Some of the most praised Game writers reference the “48 Laws of Power”; which is the most hoax-some thing I’ve ever read…next to the Necronomicon. Others from the MRA/MGTOW side are just as nihilistic as Roissy, except without insight or even pleasure. Some of them are Christian, too. All combined, those are the most unholy of the bunch, by my lights.

    I have more to say in reply to your and Dalrock’s comments, but I want to weigh the words a bit first.

  5. Really? It strikes me as gamelessness. Do remember what the public fasters were doing: they were trying to show everyone around them how pious they were. What ‘reward’ were they after? Social status. They were, in a word, peacocking. Mystery, in first century Judaea, would have worn ashes to the synagogue, not a stupid hat to the bar.

    I’d also question whether the church age, or (apparent) divine quiescence in general, constitutes ‘aloof game’. Can you support the premises that God’s purpose in it matches the purpose of aloof game, and its operation on us matches the operation of aloof game on a girl? I wot not how. How many people have turned to other gods, or to none at all, because they will not believe in or serve a God who, for the time being, ‘does nothing’? Not many gamers would be happy if their girls, feeling neglected, went to shtupping everything else in sight. It’s advertised as a way of making her want you over others, not verifying that she prefers others to you. Hopeless betas don’t need Roissy’s advice on how to do the latter; we’ve all mastered that on our own. Either God is srsly Doing It Wrong, or he has something else in mind.

  6. Cane and Unger,

    Watch the Gospel of John, which came out in 2004, but got overshadowed by the Passion of the Christ (go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRB0EH3lA3w ) See this clip in particular :38 min – 43 min. Also check out the stuff in chapters 6, 8, and 10. How can we read these passages and not think that there was confrontation in the air as the movie portrays?

    Jesus may *look* like a beta in this movie, but his actions scream serious alpha to me here. My pastor likes to share how showing parts of this movie to his jr. high confirmation classes woke up many of them from their slumbers… this Jesus gets your attention.

    The only actor (Jim Cavizel did well, but the guy is just too good-looking to be Jesus!), in my opinion, who had done *some justice* to Jesus on the big screen (all the others either do not measure up to this man, or they are so bad it always severely disturbed me… until 2004)

    +Nathan

  7. Unger,

    “It’s advertised as a way of making her want you over others, not verifying that she prefers others to you. ”

    Taking game principles with a grain of salt, I see it as becoming who I am meant to be in Christ, and becoming more of what my wife always knew I could and should be.

    Do I fake it to some degree? Yes. But that is not because I don’t want to make it. I want to become all that I should be in Christ by the Spirit’s power. I want to be strong, more silent, competent, more aloof (i.e. not so moved by any sinful emotion on her part and focused on God’s desire for me to all that I should be as a husband, father, [and layperson, citizen, etc]), and more confident and physically assertive towards her… because God designed me to be that way, even as I do all of this in fear and trembling before Him.

  8. The problem I see with the attempt to define game is the differences of opinion on exactly how to define it won’t go away through the exercise. What I think would be more productive is to focus on specific aspects/tactics of Game one at a time and address them in specific.

    For example, I’ve written about my own use of Game in this post: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/she-felt-unloved/

    Dave From Hawaii’s experience is documented here: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/

    I think Dave crosses some lines (some) Christians might object to specifically in the area of joking about other women being interested in him. But this raises the question, if his wife needs to feel that other women desire him, is there any way he can accomplish this as a Christian husband? Note that there probably won’t ever be full agreement from Christians on exactly how to address this, but also note that this is a productive conversation in the sense that it addresses a real, defined concern.

    With this said, I’m guilty of derailing the conversation a bit here. If a definition is the end result you are looking for, this may help a bit but it isn’t where I’m driving. If a definition was intended as an intermediate step towards just this kind of question, moving past the definition to specifics will be far more productive in my opinion.

  9. Dalrock,

    I agree.

    Cane,

    What about the whole Game as discipline idea? Did you read carefully what I said here?:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/christian-denial-and-institutional-resistance-to-change/#comment-58573

    Third paragraph you big un-introspective oaf! : )

    By the way, both of those posts were solid gold to me. I’m even guilty of joking with my wife about other women being interested in me (I have no idea if that particular tactic – said in a “just joking” way, had an impact). The fact is, by taking so much of advice like this – and some of Athol’s – things have changed much in my marriage.

    That said, much of what he says is poison to. I’ve told him that.

  10. Dalrock said: “The problem I see with the attempt to define game is the differences of opinion on exactly how to define it won’t go away through the exercise. What I think would be more productive is to focus on specific aspects/tactics of Game one at a time and address them in specific.”

    On one hand: I agree.

    On the other: ZippyCatholic and I keep hitting on the same note: “Game”, as it is described, is too damned Zen. Maybe this is a problem just for me, ZC, and a handful of others, but right speaking and thinking is much the strength of West Civ’s success. And, when we get down to it, even the ones who are reluctant to abandon the Buddhist-style are forced to make their own: Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments; Rollo’s Iron Rules; etc. Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to separate the presentation aspect–Game that attempts to represent, or manipulate perception:

    right clothes for the right occasion
    right approach for the woman based on the right interpretation of her status
    know when to stay silent
    don’t laugh at your own jokes
    etc.

    from the construction aspects

    working out
    eating right
    fit and stylish clothes
    lower voice
    etc.

    ?

  11. Last comment for the moment, and I would appreciate it if Chris from Dark Brightness, or Anonymous would chime in, but Psychology (child or otherwise) has two basic parts, if I understand. There’s the applied psychology, but there’s also the philosophical psychology–the guys who study and collect the data. Now, when we commoners speak of it, we just say “psychology” whether we’re talking about group sessions, psychotherapy, or the academics. But if you want to BE a psychologist, you’re going to have to make those distinctions.

    Guys who need Game need to become attraction/control psychologists, don’t they?

  12. “Much of Game is discipline, in my opinion. That would be one of the rhetorics, right?”

    Hmm. Maybe. Although when I think rhetoric, I think of adornment that, strictly speaking, is usually not necessary, even with women. Game, as we speak of it, is often just responding appropriately (and in a way that actually matches with what God would have us do) to what is. For me, it is not natural, but I see the value of it, insofar as it embodies what seems to me true masculinity.

    “On the other: ZippyCatholic and I keep hitting on the same note: “Game”, as it is described, is too damned Zen. Maybe this is a problem just for me, ZC, and a handful of others, but right speaking and thinking is much the strength of West Civ’s success. And, when we get down to it, even the ones who are reluctant to abandon the Buddhist-style are forced to make their own: Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments; Rollo’s Iron Rules; etc. Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to separate the presentation aspect–Game that attempts to represent, or manipulate perception”

    I think this makes some sense, but I don’t see it as Zen, just as hard to pin down. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Polanyi’s “tacit knowledge” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge) but that seems more like what we are dealing with. Not sure if I get your last sentence and how it fits with your examples.

  13. Guys who need Game need to become attraction/control psychologists, don’t they?

    No. No more than a parent or manager needs to become a psychologist.

  14. Anonymous_Guy said: I think this makes some sense, but I don’t see it as Zen, just as hard to pin down.

    I see this as the same thing. It’s the largeness of Game that makes it hard to pin down. I can more accurately describe the twists and turns by giving one example after another. Maybe then people will get a feel for the shape of the Knot of Game. At some point, having felt around enough, they’ll feel like they have the grasp of it.

    Now, this approach strike me as fundamentally flawed for two reasons:

    1) The sort of person who cannot get Game from observation is going to have a low success rate understanding it from reading my description of the observation. You can check this against the comments in almost any Game blog. There are the guys who are on the perpetual hunt, and they get it then. Then there’s everybody else who spend a lot of time talking about what women do wrong. They don’t.

    2) I am fundamentally Alexandrian in my approaches to every problem. LOL.

  15. Cane,

    Alexandrian – as in Christology?

    “The sort of person who cannot get Game from observation is going to have a low success rate understanding it from reading my description of the observation.”

    Um, no. I never had a clue until I started reading about game. When I started reading MMSL, it was a whole new world. Do you read Athol’s blog? He is an incredible popularizer and speaks very effectively to betas like me. We can learn a lot from him. Check out some of his more popular posts….

    So where did I learn about the blog?

    Strangely enough, here:

    http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/09/married-man-sex-life/ (also see: http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/10/the-married-man-sex-life-primer-2011/)

    Cane, I kid you not. I don’t doubt that my wife and I were intimate more times in the next 8 months that I read that stuff than in in the previous 12 years put together.

    If you or someone else does not baptize this (insofar as it can be baptized), folks will keep going to him.

    Your picking up what Dalrock recommends (concrete examples) would be pure gold to many Christian men.

  16. @Dalrock

    Touche. Maybe it’s just what I have to do to write about it.

    @Dalrock @ A_G
    I’m not convinced I’m right. I’ll check out Tacit knowledge.

  17. Re: …insofar as it can be baptized…

    Its not just Proverbs that can help us how to understand to live in God’s world. Some great Bible passages on the value of learning in general:

    “’In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For
    we are indeed his offspring.’”—The Apostle Paul in Athens, Acts 17:28

    “And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.”—Festus, in Acts 26:24

    “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
    whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything
    worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and
    seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”—Philippians 4:8,9 1

    When Jesus told us to love God with all our mind, I am sure that first and foremost He was thinking of the oracles of God, which of course, lead to Himself – after all “in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)”. He is the Truth we should seek! Still, as we see from the passages above, Paul knew more than just the Scriptures and His Lord – for example, he knew, or knew about, prominent pagan poets. Other biblical characters had this “secular” knowledge as well: Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, as promising young Judean nobles, were chosen by their captives to learn “the literature and language of the Chaldeans”, and “God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom”. (Daniel 1:17)

    I don’t like the way Aristotle synthesized, as he combined theology with pagan learning. Still, we can certainly learn much from those who, in other respects, are dead wrong.

    Still, you are also right to be concerned about the common Christian man. I think this may be Dalrock’s weakness.

  18. @Unger

    Really? It strikes me as gamelessness. Do remember what the public fasters were doing: they were trying to show everyone around them how pious they were. What ‘reward’ were they after? Social status. They were, in a word, peacocking. Mystery, in first century Judaea, would have worn ashes to the synagogue, not a stupid hat to the bar.

    I see the same thing you do, but with one important difference. This is my hypothesis: the wise man will use Game to accurately read and interact with women of the appropriate status. This is Roissy’s error; rather, it is the error of following Roissy’s path if you don’t want Roissy’s results. To a certain extent, by definition all women are the same. What is different will need to be approached differently. Even when Roissy is successful with a non-slut, by the time he is done, she will be. This confirms his suspicions that all women are sluts.

    But he is wrong: We can awaken desires in each other that were not stumbling blocks before. This is a big part of the sin component that you can’t get from Evo Psych. From that perspective, he is turning on a dormant gene, but we know that sin corrupts.

    And men lead. Who is it going to be? So, if I recognize this, I have to assume some level of responsibility to at least NOT reinforce, or not awaken desire before its time. It’s also necessary for defense.

    Man…this is going to be a long comment. I may just want to make it into a post.

  19. Cane:
    “Game”, as it is described, is too damned Zen.
    ——————————————————-
    Yes

    and

    Dalrock:
    The problem I see with the attempt to define game is the differences of opinion on exactly how to define it won’t go away through the exercise. What I think would be more productive is to focus on specific aspects/tactics of Game one at a time and address them in specific.
    ——————————————————-
    Heck yes

  20. Wikipedia: [Christology] is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament.[2] Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus’ nature and person with the nature and person of God the Father. As such, Christology is concerned with the details of Jesus’ ministry, his acts and teachings, to arrive at a clearer understanding of who he is in his person, and his role in salvation.[3]

    More for the layperson: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Jesus-Debates-Battles/dp/0758608624 (from the preface: “he focus of the book is to take what seems to be abstract language and discussion and make the theology concrete by explaining how it relates to our salvation. To be ignorant of these debates is to be ignorant of how we Christians came to be who we are. To know about them is to have a fuller understanding of our faith and what it means for our lives today”)

    Very good book.

    The two major schools of Christology in the early church were the Alexandrian and the Antiochian…. : )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s