i am ok ... you are not ok
About: Games People Play
The solution, in the context of useful dialogue, of course, is to separate the analysis of ideas from the credit for recognizing them. When we are interested in the ideas themselves, and not in playing some i'm better than you are game, then we can talk adult to adult and maybe even function as two where functioning as one is inadequate.
Tags
- rwg
- behavior
- about rwg
- imokyounot
- eric berne
- item 1772
Comments
Seth says
yeah i found that too. the book has many games in it, many of them are not the games a lot of us play.
but one game in that book is the rwg. it is adopting the tone of a parent talking to a child, which calls forth a reaction of the same. it is i'm ok, your not ok. i can use this model to predict both of our comment behavior. it almost never fails.
M 2013-08-09 07:40:03 16686
I read it years ago when it came out. I remember one game Larry identified in PJ2 going on with a girl friend called " come here - come here -come here ... go away go away go away" . It was mostly about male-female games & family stuff. The RWG is more general & part of the survival machinery of the bran.
yeah i found that too. the book has many games in it, many of them are not the games a lot of us play.
but one game in that book is the rwg. it is adopting the tone of a parent talking to a child, which calls forth a reaction of the same. it is i'm ok, your not ok. i can use this model to predict both of our comment behavior. it almost never fails.
Seth says
i think RWG, or i'm-ok-your-not, is learned habit and not "hard wired" in the brain. It may not even be good for survival. Cooperation usually trumps fighting. they run simulations of different game strategies. if i am not mistaken, the one that ended up winning overall against all others was: first cooperate, then do what the other does but ever so one in a while throw in a cooperate regardless. but it may have been some other variation on that.
Seth says
well you are certainly right abut the "leaving a discussion being one-down feels weird" ... it does not feel good. but what we do with that feeling can be inspiration for a creative response that moves the conversation to new possibilities ... or it can be just an excuse to continue a bad behavior.
you are also right in that it is not a "game" in many senses of the word "game". thing is it is a behavior that we havitually do and apparently we habitually do things because we "get something" out it doing it at some level. i do believe that was the sense that eric berne was using the word.
M 2013-08-09 08:27:43 16686
The RWG is not a parent-child game except perhaps to you. Gernerally it is more even level. It is hard wired. Try leaving a discussion being "one-down" in the conversation & see how hard wired it is! They are not the same thing. RWG is really not a "game".
well you are certainly right abut the "leaving a discussion being one-down feels weird" ... it does not feel good. but what we do with that feeling can be inspiration for a creative response that moves the conversation to new possibilities ... or it can be just an excuse to continue a bad behavior. you are also right in that it is not a "game" in many senses of the word "game". thing is it is a behavior that we havitually do and apparently we habitually do things because we "get something" out it doing it at some level. i do believe that was the sense that eric berne was using the word.
Mark de LA says
If you wanted to consider alien ontologies you might think of the RWG as the Lucifer-Ahriman doubles having fun with 2 different bodies.
OTOH, you could think of the psychological anchor you have for your father as the source for your confusion of Berne's games with the RWG.
(IMHO - which is neither)
OTOH, you could think of the psychological anchor you have for your father as the source for your confusion of Berne's games with the RWG.
(IMHO - which is neither)
Seth says
oh, is that what you meant.
anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
M 2013-08-09 10:25:43 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:16:01 16686
source: Mark says
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
... huh?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
Well, to start I don't mean that at all. They are two different dynamics. I suspect that clarity will ensue if you don't collapse them together at all. The RWG existence was demonstrated to me in Michael Hadley's Thursday Night seminar series by a physical metaphor of hand wrestling. One person would wrestle his partner's arm down & say I'm right then the other would do likewise. To start each was supposed to let the other wrestle his arm down. After continuing for a while it became automatic & emotions were the same as the right-wrong game. You probably had to be there or try it with a sense of discovery. There were no mothers, no fathers, no spouses & no psychology needed to discover the dynamic. Berne is a psychologist.
oh, is that what you meant
.anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
Mark de LA says
seth 2013-08-09 11:13:52 16686
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well
.
but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context.
M 2013-08-09 11:05:31 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:51:42 16686
oh, is that what you meant.
anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
M 2013-08-09 10:25:43 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:16:01 16686
source: Mark says
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
... huh?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
Well, to start I don't mean that at all. They are two different dynamics. I suspect that clarity will ensue if you don't collapse them together at all. The RWG existence was demonstrated to me in Michael Hadley's Thursday Night seminar series by a physical metaphor of hand wrestling. One person would wrestle his partner's arm down & say I'm right then the other would do likewise. To start each was supposed to let the other wrestle his arm down. After continuing for a while it became automatic & emotions were the same as the right-wrong game. You probably had to be there or try it with a sense of discovery. There were no mothers, no fathers, no spouses & no psychology needed to discover the dynamic. Berne is a psychologist.
oh, is that what you meant
.anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
Whatever is going on in your mind has whatever causes you believe. It may even create endless chains of:
... cause-effece-effect .....
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well
. but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context. Because, dear bro, usually what is going on in our minds & in the news & media etc is absolute bullshit!
Did you think there was something else there?
Did you think there was something else there?
Seth says
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well.
but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context.
M 2013-08-09 11:05:31 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:51:42 16686
oh, is that what you meant.
anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
M 2013-08-09 10:25:43 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:16:01 16686
source: Mark says
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
... huh?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
Well, to start I don't mean that at all. They are two different dynamics. I suspect that clarity will ensue if you don't collapse them together at all. The RWG existence was demonstrated to me in Michael Hadley's Thursday Night seminar series by a physical metaphor of hand wrestling. One person would wrestle his partner's arm down & say I'm right then the other would do likewise. To start each was supposed to let the other wrestle his arm down. After continuing for a while it became automatic & emotions were the same as the right-wrong game. You probably had to be there or try it with a sense of discovery. There were no mothers, no fathers, no spouses & no psychology needed to discover the dynamic. Berne is a psychologist.
oh, is that what you meant
.anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
Whatever is going on in your mind has whatever causes you believe. It may even create endless chains of:
... cause-effece-effect .....
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well
. but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context.
Seth says
well, yes, of course.
But why bring that up in this context? The cause of the RWG is not important to me or even this conversation. If whatever we think about the cause of the RWG is bullshit, then so be it ... it is not of any importance to me here.
What is important to me here is that the RWG is something that we can choose to do or not to do. Also that i can predict that: if i talk down to you, then you will respond in kind. Since that just gets us in an unproductive infinite loop, i choose, as best that i can not to talk down to you.
Do you not agree that for me that is a good strategy to have a useful conversation with you?
M 2013-08-09 11:55:29 16686
seth 2013-08-09 11:13:52 16686
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well.
but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context.
M 2013-08-09 11:05:31 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:51:42 16686
oh, is that what you meant.
anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
M 2013-08-09 10:25:43 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:16:01 16686
source: Mark says
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
... huh?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
Well, to start I don't mean that at all. They are two different dynamics. I suspect that clarity will ensue if you don't collapse them together at all. The RWG existence was demonstrated to me in Michael Hadley's Thursday Night seminar series by a physical metaphor of hand wrestling. One person would wrestle his partner's arm down & say I'm right then the other would do likewise. To start each was supposed to let the other wrestle his arm down. After continuing for a while it became automatic & emotions were the same as the right-wrong game. You probably had to be there or try it with a sense of discovery. There were no mothers, no fathers, no spouses & no psychology needed to discover the dynamic. Berne is a psychologist.
oh, is that what you meant
.anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
Whatever is going on in your mind has whatever causes you believe. It may even create endless chains of:
... cause-effece-effect .....
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well
. but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context. Because, dear bro, usually what is going on in our minds & in the news & media etc is absolute bullshit!
Did you think there was something else there?
Did you think there was something else there?
well, yes, of course
. But why bring that up in this context? The cause of the RWG is not important to me or even this conversation. If whatever we think about the cause of the RWG is bullshit, then so be it ... it is not of any importance to me here.
What is important to me here is that the RWG is something that we can choose to do or not to do. Also that i can predict that: if i talk down to you, then you will respond in kind. Since that just gets us in an unproductive infinite loop, i choose, as best that i can not to talk down to you.
Do you not agree that for me that is a good strategy to have a useful conversation with you?
Mark de LA says
seth 2013-08-09 12:14:04 16686
well, yes, of course.
But why bring that up in this context? The cause of the RWG is not important to me or even this conversation. If whatever we think about the cause of the RWG is bullshit, then so be it ... it is not of any importance to me here.
What is important to me here is that the RWG is something that we can choose to do or not to do. Also that i can predict that: if i talk down to you, then you will respond in kind. Since that just gets us in an unproductive infinite loop, i choose, as best that i can not to talk down to you.
Do you not agree that for me that is a good strategy to have a useful conversation with you?
M 2013-08-09 11:55:29 16686
seth 2013-08-09 11:13:52 16686
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well.
but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context.
M 2013-08-09 11:05:31 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:51:42 16686
oh, is that what you meant.
anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
M 2013-08-09 10:25:43 16686
seth 2013-08-09 10:16:01 16686
source: Mark says
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
Maybe after things settle consider your "new distinction" from Berne's old book as uncollapsed from the RWG & clarity may ensue (or not?)
... huh?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
I'm saying they are substantially the same thing. Berne goes an extra step by associating "being right and the other being wrong" with the habit and pay-back for being "a parent to a child". It seems reasonable to assume that is where the habit starts ... then like the little monkeys we are, we mimic the behavior of our parents.
What do you mean, different than that, by "uncollapsed"?
Well, to start I don't mean that at all. They are two different dynamics. I suspect that clarity will ensue if you don't collapse them together at all. The RWG existence was demonstrated to me in Michael Hadley's Thursday Night seminar series by a physical metaphor of hand wrestling. One person would wrestle his partner's arm down & say I'm right then the other would do likewise. To start each was supposed to let the other wrestle his arm down. After continuing for a while it became automatic & emotions were the same as the right-wrong game. You probably had to be there or try it with a sense of discovery. There were no mothers, no fathers, no spouses & no psychology needed to discover the dynamic. Berne is a psychologist.
oh, is that what you meant
.anyway i am talking here about the habit of "insisting that you are right and the other is wrong". the cause of that is, for me, is just kind of a matter of conjecture. berne associated it with parental behavior; but it doesn't really matter to me where it started or what is the cause. The important, salient edge, for me is that we can choose to do it or not. Oh, and that i can predict comment behavior based upon it: if i talk down to you, you will do the same in respons ... happens almost every time.
Whatever is going on in your mind has whatever causes you believe. It may even create endless chains of:
... cause-effece-effect .....
Well yes, those words sure hangs together well
. but why did you associate them with the impression a bottle left in the grass (certainly cause effect) with the term "absolute bullshit" ? ... sorry i don't get the connection in this context. Because, dear bro, usually what is going on in our minds & in the news & media etc is absolute bullshit!
Did you think there was something else there?
Did you think there was something else there?
well, yes, of course
. But why bring that up in this context? The cause of the RWG is not important to me or even this conversation. If whatever we think about the cause of the RWG is bullshit, then so be it ... it is not of any importance to me here.
What is important to me here is that the RWG is something that we can choose to do or not to do. Also that i can predict that: if i talk down to you, then you will respond in kind. Since that just gets us in an unproductive infinite loop, i choose, as best that i can not to talk down to you.
Do you not agree that for me that is a good strategy to have a useful conversation with you?
Not so far ... so far you have proven my point that you can't help it & ignored my contention that it has nothing to do with Berne. It might be a good strategy if you followed it. No minds changing here. Still a dual monologue; touching occasionally. Really - isn't this just a post about arguing about arguing about ......?
Seth says
I think this syndrome has also been studied under the term "zero sum game" ...
source: Wikipedia/zero sum game
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
... which, if you think about it, is the opposite of synergy where you get "win win". With zero sum, the universe does not grow.
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
Mark de LA says
seth 2013-08-11 09:14:36 16686
I think this syndrome has also been studied under the term "zero sum game" ...
source: Wikipedia/zero sum game
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
... which, if you think about it, is the opposite of synergy where you get "win win". With zero sum, the universe does not grow.
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
I'm answering the question with a question: you have them all collapsed, don't you? If they are all the same & have been exhausted why do you yet bring up again ? What was your purpose? Did you want to minimize my bringing up the RWG in the first place as old hat? To me they are all different. Berne's is psychology; maybe problems in childhood. Zero sum is over-used in politics/economics like the rich have to get poor in order for the poor to more sufficient. Similar examples show up in the identity group sector of your politics. Maybe even apply to racism. The RWG is more ontological & was demonstrated in a Zen kind of workshop to me. It is automatic except in some transformed people. It also aligns with Anthrosophical notions of the double.
... end of story for me!
... end of story for me!
Mark de LA says
One thing that helps dialogues & communication (proably not arguments, debates & dialectics) is to address ALL of what a respondent produced in their previous statements instead of bulling your way forward with the same shit previously offered. In my case I just grow tired of the same kind of droid material & so forth.
Mark de LA says
M 2013-08-11 11:11:32 16686
I mentioned on some post this AM that Buddha & NLP distinction Meta Model were helpful. I don't know where they went.
I think that just about anyone can cultivate this factor!
The challenge is to stay with the points of view difference without the
RWG - hence in some cases rise to a level above the individuals
involved (something like Buddha did & the Meta Model of NLP) What obscure south american indian tribe did you study to find someone exhibiting the bold blue remark? See 1722
Seth says
Well my intention in continuing the dialogue and trying to deepen our mutual understanding here is not to "get you to minimize bringing RWG up" ... no not at all ... in fact when you label something as RWG i almost always agree that RWG is going on there. It is not the labeling that is the problem for me. It is the doing of the game. I would totally love it if we both stopped insisting that the other was wrong with ourselves being right ...
.
Dialectics does require that conflicts and contradictions are recognized. Our conversations would be quite boring, and lack motivation, should we eliminate contradictions. The goal, of course, is to understand and resolve them. But, me thinks, our personalities and credits should recede to the background and never interfere with our rational and spiritual comprehensions of the topics.
M 2013-08-11 09:31:13 16686
seth 2013-08-11 09:14:36 16686
I think this syndrome has also been studied under the term "zero sum game" ...
source: Wikipedia/zero sum game
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
The zero-sum property (if one gains, another loses) means that any result of a zero-sum situation is Pareto optimal (generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game).
... which, if you think about it, is the opposite of synergy where you get "win win". With zero sum, the universe does not grow.
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
You have recognized this syndrome also and have called it "The Right Wrong Game".
Berne also recognized it and called it "I'm ok, your not ok". He associated the parent to child attitude to the behavior ... in the sense that parents "talk down" to their children when they are correcting them. But as you have pointed out, and i agree, this syndrome is not always associated with a parental attitude.
But is there anything that importantly distinguishes "i'm right, your wrong" from "i'm ok, your not" or from "i win, you loose" ?
Or maybe we should ask: What is the common theme between all three?
Or in any given event which could honestly be tagged with one of those terms, could it not also be tagged with the other two? If not, why not?
What am i missing?
I'm answering the question with a question: you have them all collapsed, don't you? If they are all the same & have been exhausted why do you yet bring up again ? What was your purpose? Did you want to minimize my bringing up the RWG in the first place as old hat? To me they are all different. Berne's is psychology; maybe problems in childhood. Zero sum is over-used in politics/economics like the rich have to get poor in order for the poor to more sufficient. Similar examples show up in the identity group sector of your politics. Maybe even apply to racism. The RWG is more ontological & was demonstrated in a Zen kind of workshop to me. It is automatic except in some transformed people. It also aligns with Anthrosophical notions of the double.
... end of story for me!
... end of story for me!Well my intention in continuing the dialogue and trying to deepen our mutual understanding here is not to "get you to minimize bringing RWG up" ... no not at all ... in fact when you label something as RWG i almost always agree that RWG is going on there. It is not the labeling that is the problem for me. It is the doing of the game. I would totally love it if we both stopped insisting that the other was wrong with ourselves being right ...
. Dialectics does require that conflicts and contradictions are recognized. Our conversations would be quite boring, and lack motivation, should we eliminate contradictions. The goal, of course, is to understand and resolve them. But, me thinks, our personalities and credits should recede to the background and never interfere with our rational and spiritual comprehensions of the topics.
Mark de LA says
Maybe practice some skills with a game.
Maybe practice some skills with a game.C/Net: ...
Alternate-reality games (ARGs) somehow managed to miss the mobile boat, with the stunning exception of Ingress, made by Google's own Niantic Labs. It's a shame — but it's heartening to see that Google Glass has already attracted an ARG dev, creating an MMOARG based on ... ants.
It's called Swarm, and sees you using Google Glass to perform tasks to help your colony succeed, collecting resources and defending against rival colonies.
It works a little like Ingress in that it can take place as you go about your daily life. First, the game maps the player's daily routine using GPS data, laying colourful "trails" on a map card. Developers Jon Lawhead of Columbia University and Daniel Estrada of the University of Illinois note that this data cannot be used to track any one user; instead, it is used to examine patterns of behaviour and where those patterns intersect with those of other users.
...
Seth says
.
I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
. I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
Seth says
seth 2013-08-21 09:49:40 16686
well to figure out what something means to another, you must try to put your own mind in their shoes. not something that i want to stop.
ME 2013-08-21 08:28:10 16686
seth 2013-08-21 08:00:15 16686
.
I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
. I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
Then too .... you could stop practicing your mind-reading lack of skill on others ...
well to figure out what something means to another, you must try to put your own mind in their shoes. not something that i want to stop.
Yeah, but you are just putting your mind in your imaginary idea of their shoes & going in a circle - mental masturbation - thinking you can mind read.
Seth says
ME 2013-08-21 09:54:12 16686
seth 2013-08-21 09:49:40 16686
well to figure out what something means to another, you must try to put your own mind in their shoes. not something that i want to stop.
ME 2013-08-21 08:28:10 16686
seth 2013-08-21 08:00:15 16686
.
I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
. I have just recently discovered a rule i can apply to determine if one of my responses in a dialogue game is a good one: if after writing the comment, i am extremely curious how others will respond, then it is good. Alternatively, if i can fairly accurately predict their response, it is bad.
Then too .... you could stop practicing your mind-reading lack of skill on others ...
well to figure out what something means to another, you must try to put your own mind in their shoes. not something that i want to stop.
Yeah, but you are just putting your mind in your imaginary idea of their shoes & going in a circle - mental masturbation - thinking you can mind read.
See Also
- Thought Zen & the Art of the Right-Wrong Game with 769 viewings related by tag "item 1772".
- Thought Politics is the Art of making the possible happen ... with 215 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Negative Feedback with 169 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought [title (21932)] with 141 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Socretes Cafe Tuesday April 18 2017 with 140 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought about: Unhacking Wars - comment 67183 with 76 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought about: What Seth voted for in politics - comment 64975 with 67 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Being on Stage in the Foreground with 42 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought The trick is to enjoy the prick with 39 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Grokking or Not ? Reality? with 38 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought The Wiki at the Beginning with 32 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought Communication with 31 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Can We destroy Symbols by Association with 29 viewings related by tag "about rwg".
- Thought Politics = RWG with 27 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Infinite Nothing NOW with 25 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Profound #GofB material with 19 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Humming Flower with 17 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought A New Respect for The Specific with 17 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought #NameCallingJuice with 12 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Tame the Dragon with 11 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought about: how a lone hacker shredded the myth of crowdsourcing with 10 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought A meme by Yogi Bhajan with 9 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Sure, face to face talks will solve all the ME problems! with 9 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought about: My Inside, My Soul, My Spirit - comment 59016 with 8 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Just do not do it! with 7 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought #RWGBoomerang with 7 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought BrainGasm #2 with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Tools For The RWG ... with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Instead of the Right Wrong Game with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Seth fights Mark & Mark fights Seth with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought about: the freedom of being: beyond right/wrong, win/lose, etc. with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought A drawing of NOWs in my life with 6 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought It's not called the Conservative Party. This is called the Republican Party. with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Why Mismatchers Get Stuck in Polarity with 6 viewings related by tag "eric berne".
- Thought about: My Inside, My Soul, My Spirit - comment 59016 - comment 59030 with 6 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Self vs Not Self with 5 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Musings on Goodies on Line #1 of Hex #34 TA GWO with 5 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Last words Marker with 5 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Identity Politics with 5 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought My Eating Behavior with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought ... why The Leviathan is real ... ? with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought I dont have to do that! with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought about: Smart Mobs: Socio-cybernetic Decision-Making with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought Vaporous Things - Beliefs with 4 viewings related by tag "about rwg".
- Thought Thought, Feeling & Will + Consciousness with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought RWG - A Solution ? with 4 viewings related by tag "behavior".
- Thought ARGUE = RWG with 4 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought It is all about the Juice with 3 viewings related by tag "rwg".
- Thought Pattern Recognition with 3 viewings related by tag "RWG".
- Thought Obama versus the Wright with 3 viewings related by tag "rwg".