-
Features
What are some 'games' that people play?
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Guilt games are an obvious one. Why complain about something that someone does wrong? Far better to save it up until they'll criticise you for something, then bring it up as an example to imply that they do things all the time that annoy you, and thus they have no right to complain. About anything. Bonus points if you then specifically ask them why they're upset, and then crush them with another carefully stored misdeed when they reply.
I'm looking forward to Christmas... <sigh>
I'm looking forward to Christmas... <sigh>
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
To play the victim. For example, "Oh that's racist", coming from a white person when a black person mentions racist mistreatment. It deflects the blame away (or in this bace, back). This is perhaps the most widely used "game" people play, and his innumerable variations.
Clivedurdle
Member
Is Islam especially a huge centuries long game, making certain films small fry?
http://www.ericberne.com/transactional-analysis/
http://www.ericberne.com/transactional-analysis/
Clivedurdle
Member
We have variant rules to how we play monopoly. Are not the sects of religions just variants of rules?
Islam is particularly interesting as it seems to be institutionalising a particularly damaging form of the parent child relationship - submission. Which foot did you leave the toilet with?
Islam is particularly interesting as it seems to be institutionalising a particularly damaging form of the parent child relationship - submission. Which foot did you leave the toilet with?
Underseer
Contributor
I'm not sure that's a "game" so much as the result of someone from the privileged group having no clue what people in the unprivileged group endure, but you're right in that it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
dx713
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 808
- Location
- Provence, France
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Epicurean, Compatibilist
I'm happy to live in a quite "game-free" environment, working with science-minded engineers that are more concerned with their computation results than any power games, except for some managers.
Those managers' game can generally be summed up as "pretend to be friendly", with a subset of "trying to guess who on the N+1 level is succeeding best at it so I can focus my efforts on them and ride their wake".
And even there, I'm quite lucky, a lot of them are former engineers who remember why they're here and focus more on the computation results than on office politics.
The worst games I've seen take me back to high-school and turned around sex and dating. Most memorable, pretend undying love to get sex with that hot girl, then warn my less-lucky friend who also find her hot when I'm about to dump her so that he can prepare the ground and be there to "console" her while she's down.
(don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against casual sex and/or group sex or whatever, it's the lying and hurting others that got under my skin)
Oh, I also had a boss, in a former company, try the "talk loud and don't shut up until you agree" game with me, trying to make me agree he didn't underestimate the project he just sold. Does that count?
(pro-tip: your engineers are not going to fall for the same commercial pep talk you just gave the customer, especially when you just disregarded their advice to give it. Especially when they can be blunt with no trouble because they've just seen ads for profiles close to theirs at a competitor that pays better. Just trust them to do their best instead of trying to get them to sign on your irrealistic schedule - oh, and give them a raise to ease the pain of having to deal with you instead of acting like you know better when you haven't touched a computer in 10 years)
Oh, I realized this is just part of another management game: make my (irrealistic) objectives yours, so that I can blame you when we fail them.
Those managers' game can generally be summed up as "pretend to be friendly", with a subset of "trying to guess who on the N+1 level is succeeding best at it so I can focus my efforts on them and ride their wake".
And even there, I'm quite lucky, a lot of them are former engineers who remember why they're here and focus more on the computation results than on office politics.
The worst games I've seen take me back to high-school and turned around sex and dating. Most memorable, pretend undying love to get sex with that hot girl, then warn my less-lucky friend who also find her hot when I'm about to dump her so that he can prepare the ground and be there to "console" her while she's down.
(don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against casual sex and/or group sex or whatever, it's the lying and hurting others that got under my skin)
Oh, I also had a boss, in a former company, try the "talk loud and don't shut up until you agree" game with me, trying to make me agree he didn't underestimate the project he just sold. Does that count?
(pro-tip: your engineers are not going to fall for the same commercial pep talk you just gave the customer, especially when you just disregarded their advice to give it. Especially when they can be blunt with no trouble because they've just seen ads for profiles close to theirs at a competitor that pays better. Just trust them to do their best instead of trying to get them to sign on your irrealistic schedule - oh, and give them a raise to ease the pain of having to deal with you instead of acting like you know better when you haven't touched a computer in 10 years)
Oh, I realized this is just part of another management game: make my (irrealistic) objectives yours, so that I can blame you when we fail them.
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
That was just one example. Play the Victim is quite the household game, fun for the whole family. "I'm the scapegoat", "You're hurting me", "That's my lot in life", "Men are so...", "Women are so...", "Parents are so...".
It helps let some steam out and puts the personal problem out into the group for resolution, though the group is so habituated to playing the game they usually can't manage a solution --I believe that is the Darwinian root of it all: pooling group resources.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,395
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Indebtedness is a big one, and often very subtle. It's also a huge part of our culture and social fabric.
There's a reciprocity to gift-giving, that I think we all know at some level. If Aunt Sue always gives you expensive fine gifts, you feel obligated to give her more than just a trinket each year at Christmas. It gets complicated though, because there's normally an expression of personal value and emotion involved in gift giving. The "normal expectation is that a well-thought out and appropriate gift is an expression of how much the person values you, and how much they love you.
But it can be exploited by a canny game-player, who uses costly or dear gifts to create a feeling of obligation in the receiver. This is especially true when the gift recipient can't reasonably match the quality or cost of the gift in return. It leaves the recipient feeling that they are indebted to the giver.
Favors are similar, and even more devious. Favors imply that the recipient owes not an item, but a service. And since there's no expected exchange date, it's a future claim, an open ended claim. If the favor is asked of the giver, then the recipient knows that there will be a future claim, and in some sense consents to that obligation. Depending on the familiarity of the parties to the exchange, it can be no big deal. Most of the time, we trust that the favor asked in return will be equivalent in onus to that which was given.
But a clever person can exploit this substantially. A person can perform unasked for favors. For most people, even if you didn't ask for the favor, it still creates a sense of obligation and indebtedness to the favor giver. And an exploiter can perform a favor which is valuable and costly to the recipient, but not nearly as dear to the giver... then creating a large future claim. The purpose is clearly to create a future claim to exploit at their need. Often the purpose is to simply have someone "owe" them.
********************************
Many people who dislike being recipients of charity probably dislike it for this reason - it creates a sense of indebtedness. Anonymous charity lessens that burden, because there is nobody to claim that debt. But it can still leave the recipient feeling that they're "account is overdrawn", in the cosmic sense.
There's a reciprocity to gift-giving, that I think we all know at some level. If Aunt Sue always gives you expensive fine gifts, you feel obligated to give her more than just a trinket each year at Christmas. It gets complicated though, because there's normally an expression of personal value and emotion involved in gift giving. The "normal expectation is that a well-thought out and appropriate gift is an expression of how much the person values you, and how much they love you.
But it can be exploited by a canny game-player, who uses costly or dear gifts to create a feeling of obligation in the receiver. This is especially true when the gift recipient can't reasonably match the quality or cost of the gift in return. It leaves the recipient feeling that they are indebted to the giver.
Favors are similar, and even more devious. Favors imply that the recipient owes not an item, but a service. And since there's no expected exchange date, it's a future claim, an open ended claim. If the favor is asked of the giver, then the recipient knows that there will be a future claim, and in some sense consents to that obligation. Depending on the familiarity of the parties to the exchange, it can be no big deal. Most of the time, we trust that the favor asked in return will be equivalent in onus to that which was given.
But a clever person can exploit this substantially. A person can perform unasked for favors. For most people, even if you didn't ask for the favor, it still creates a sense of obligation and indebtedness to the favor giver. And an exploiter can perform a favor which is valuable and costly to the recipient, but not nearly as dear to the giver... then creating a large future claim. The purpose is clearly to create a future claim to exploit at their need. Often the purpose is to simply have someone "owe" them.
********************************
Many people who dislike being recipients of charity probably dislike it for this reason - it creates a sense of indebtedness. Anonymous charity lessens that burden, because there is nobody to claim that debt. But it can still leave the recipient feeling that they're "account is overdrawn", in the cosmic sense.