Monday, October 19, 2009

Game we can believe in.

Ferdinand enumerates the principles of game:

  • assertiveness – The ability to project your will on the world. The capability to direct situations to your benefit, insert yourself into the center of social interactions, and act on your own volition.

  • calmness – The ability to remain unaffected by the emotional storms of those around you. The will to be a pillar of stability in a world of chaos.

  • confidence – Complete faith in your ability to navigate the world. An unshakable belief in the righteousness of your actions.

  • independence – The willingness to carve your own path through the world, while remaining mindful of those connected to you.

  • indifference – The ability to avoid being overly invested in individual outcomes. The foresight to keep your eye on the bigger picture.

  • presentability – The ability to groom yourself and look good. The possession of style.

  • sociability – The skills to interact with other human beings. The capability to understand, relate to, and engage those around you. The ability to smile when appropriate and not take things too seriously.

With the possible exception of "indifference", I would be surprised if Roissy's critics -- Justin, Trumwill, Sheila, etc. -- would find much to argue with here.

15 comments:

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Hey, thanks for the props. As Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, one of my colleagues at The Spearhead is fond of saying, game is nothing more then effective masculinity.

Keep in mind I'm open to revising this definition based on the feedback I get. If you've got anything to add, just chime in.

And who's Sheila? Is she, by chance, Stone over at Hit Coffee?

Φ said...

Affirmative, "Stone" is short for "Sheila Tone".

While I would agree that "indifference" is likely a facet of the alpha personality, I would say two things: first, that "investment in individual outcomes" is not antithetical to "keeping your eye on the big picture"; second, speaking for myself, I would never renounce concern for individual outcomes. I will, for instance, always be concerned with the security of my nation more than the security of nations-in-general, and the future of my children over children in the abstract.

Not that this is what you meant. Just sayin'.

Justin said...

Great list, although I suspect it was borrowed from some PUA list of remedial-personality-work. In reality, those are just the time-honored traits of masculinity. I can't stomach the way "Game" is trying to take them over. Ferd admits it above, but if I post that same obvious truth, I get shrill attacks, being an eeeevil socon! ha

When it comes to Game and that list, I think we see a major disconnect at the level of sociability, especially "the capability to understand, relate to, and engage those around you." I have yet to see a Game-originated post that in any way attempted to relate to women. Use and manipulate them, yes, relate to them, no.

Be a decent friend to a woman? Never heard that addressed. Dismissing the idea as being an emotional tampon, seen that a lot...

Be an effective mentor to a younger lady/girl? Whaaa?

The role of fathershood and family? You gotta be kidding.

Game also does a very poor job, if it makes any effort at all, in helping us relate to our fellow men. Male friendship, say what??? Wingmen and AMOGing cockblockers are the only men I've ever seen referenced.

ironrailsironweights said...

Some of these go together. Displaying some degree of indifference - in other words, not thinking that if you get nowhere with the woman you're looking at in the bar, you'll be single forever - will boost your confidence and calmness. And, unfortunately, vice-versa.

Be a decent friend to a woman? Never heard that addressed. Dismissing the idea as being an emotional tampon, seen that a lot...

It's probably possible to be a decent friend to a woman without also being her emotional tampon. Difficult, but not impossible.

Peter

Φ said...

It's probably possible to be a decent friend to a woman without also being her emotional tampon. Difficult, but not impossible.

The hard way to do this is to hold her accountable. This takes more guts than I have.

I had a kinda-sorta ex-girlfriend who called me in tears to complain about how unjust it was that she "lost a child".

Lost a child, I thought to myself. You freaking had an abortion, you twit! But I didn't say it.

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Φ:

"...second, speaking for myself, I would never renounce concern for individual outcomes. I will, for instance, always be concerned with the security of my nation more than the security of nations-in-general, and the future of my children over children in the abstract."

I was thinking in the PUA sense of approaching women, but you're right. I'll have to rewrite that one.

Justin:

"Great list, although I suspect it was borrowed from some PUA list of remedial-personality-work."

My original post has a list of citations, if you're interested.

"In reality, those are just the time-honored traits of masculinity. I can't stomach the way "Game" is trying to take them over."

Why do you keep trying to differentiate between game and masculinity? It amounts to so much pointless hair-splitting. Part of my work at In Mala Fide and The Spearhead is trying to prove that game is nothing more then a modern articulation of these "time-honored traits". Call it game, call it whatever you want, it's the same old thing.

"I have yet to see a Game-originated post that in any way attempted to relate to women. Use and manipulate them, yes, relate to them, no."

If you want to get amoral about it, a prerequisite of manipulating someone is being able to relate to them. See Robert Greene's "The Art of Seduction." That, and all goal-oriented behavior is manipulation. Grooming yourself in the morning is manipulation. Writing a resume that emphasizes your strengths and de-emphasizes your weaknesses is manipulation. Manipulation can be good, evil, or neutral - there is no implicit morality in it.

"Be a decent friend to a woman? Never heard that addressed."

My definition of game, from the OP, is this:

"game (\ˈgām\), noun – a set of male behaviors, attitudes, actions, and strategies designed to win the sexual attraction of females."

"Being a decent friend to a woman" doesn't fall under that rubric.

"Dismissing the idea as being an emotional tampon, seen that a lot..."

There's a reason for that. Most guys enter into platonic friendships with women for no other reason then to get into her pants. This attitude poisons the relationship from the outset. Being platonic friends with a woman is, in the context of sexual attraction, extremely difficult.

"Be an effective mentor to a younger lady/girl? Whaaa?"

A system that involved getting women sexually attracted to you shouldn't have anything to do with mentoring.

"The role of fathershood and family? You gotta be kidding."

Game is morally neutral. It is a tool. The advantage is that it can adopted to fit any moral framework. For example, Dave from Hawaii (alternately known as Keoni Galt and Hawaiian Libertarian) learned game to keep his marriage together. No reason why fatherhood couldn't be plugged in as well.

"Game also does a very poor job, if it makes any effort at all, in helping us relate to our fellow men. Male friendship, say what??? Wingmen and AMOGing cockblockers are the only men I've ever seen referenced."

Again, expecting a tool designed for engendering sexual attraction in women to help with male-male friendships is foolhardy.

Peter:

"Some of these go together. Displaying some degree of indifference - in other words, not thinking that if you get nowhere with the woman you're looking at in the bar, you'll be single forever - will boost your confidence and calmness."

Excellent point. The qualities, from my research, experience, and observation, reinforce each other in various ways.

Trumwill said...

Actually, I believe more strongly in indifference than to some (most?) of the others. The key word being "in individual outcomes". If I hadn't been so concerned about individual outcomes, it's likely I would have tried more often and learned better from my mistakes. I doubt that I am alone in this regard.

As I've commented before, the problem with saying "If you agree with the above, you agree with Game" is similar to the World's Shortest Political Quiz and libertarians and "If you believe women should be treated equally, you're a feminist" with feminism. In all three cases, actually, I was initially quite supportive of the concepts but became disillusioned when I discovered that the True Believers often combined the unobjectionable with views that I had a harder time signing on to.

Justin said...

Ferd, you ask: "Why do you keep trying to differentiate between game and masculinity? It amounts to so much pointless hair-splitting."

But you yourself admit that Game is just "a tool designed for engendering sexual attraction in women."

The larger circle is effective masculinity. A small circle inside that is attracting single women. Game is smaller circle in that circle.

Yet Game-sters are always trying to enlarge their little circle, naming literally everything as an aspect of Game.

I don't object to Game because I am a socon or feminist or whatever. I object becfause this is destructive to the male psyche.

By framing your identity and centralizing your worldview around Game, you are poisoning both your perspective and ability to effectively form other relationships.

My life involves: having daughters, sisters, sisters in law, female friends of the wife, and female friends of my own. I look out at what passes for Game and laugh. It's for boys.

Unfortunately, it carries a warped and destructive worldview. Trumwill put it perfectly.

Φ said...

Justin: I think Ferdinand already stipulated that "Game" (by his definition) was not the sum-total of what a man should aspire to. That's not to say that nobody takes that view, but Ferdinand is not responsible for them.

I liked the way you put it: "The larger circle is effective masculinity. A small circle inside that is attracting single women. Game is smaller circle in that circle."

Perhaps you would have been happier if Ferdinand had said at the outset that his list was of the principles of masculinity that are also applicable to game?

Thursday said...

"[I]nvestment in individual outcomes" means investment in the outcome of individual interactions AKA the "everybody has to like me" syndrome.

Thursday said...

Being friends with a woman without being an emotional tampon is actually pretty simple, talk to her like she was a guy. Keep your conversation on more logical topics.

Justin said...

Phi, yes, I like how you put that: principles of masculinity that are also applicable to game.

You know, thinking about the list, I think the issues of "calmness" and "indifference" are somewhat dysfunctional. I have found that those very traits will get you walked on and disrepected by your woman. I have found out that hard way that the best way to deal with female irrationality is to ESCALATE FIRST.

Being calm and indifferent in the face of female hysteria only seems to encourage more of it, in my experience. Whenever I sense that feminine shit storm rising, and I don't want to put up with it, I start to "freak out" first. That puts the woman suddenly in the role of having to be the calm one, the diffuser, the conciliator. Emotional jujitsu. Anyone else ever do that?

Φ said...

Anyone else ever do that?

Yes, and for exactly that reason. But frankly, Justin, I'm kind of surprised. From what you have written before, I would have counted you against that kind of manipulation.

Justin said...

Hmm, I never thought of it as manipulation. Self-defense, coping, alpha-dominance, whatever. I learned the hard way that not being in charge sets you up for the fall.

How did you find out about that particular trick? Did you see it at work by your dad, or did he tell you, or did you just naturally do it, as part of a dominant personality?

I wish I had known about it when I was young. Being raised by a single, feminist, spiritualist mom, with no father or older brothers, I had to climb a big hill, as you can imagine.

Φ said...

I guess it's manipulation in the sense that I'm putting on emotions that I don't really feel. Plus its outcome oriented.

I'm not young, and I never saw it at growing up. Just recently, I decided to try it once to see what would happen, and it worked out.

Such dominant personality that I have only comes out in a dominance vaccuum. I almost never assert it if I expect any actual competition.