Psychology on The Rawness

The Rawness is a blog on game associated topics I had seen mentioned a number of places, but never read. Krauser did an analysis of a post on it, which perked my interest.

It’s actually a series of posts in which “T” (or Ricky Raw, I’m not completely clear on the handle) answers a letter from a reader asking for relationship advice and if learning game would help him. He answers by completely taking apart the concept of game from a psychological standpoint. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but I will summarize it and analyze the parts particularly applicable to me and people like me.

“T” defines wannabe PUAs as “co-dependents” and the women they desire as “narcissists”. Briefly co-dependents have the flaw of wanting to feel good about themselves by making others happy and caring for their feelings, and narcissists have the flaw of wanting others to cater to their desires and feelings. A co-dependent and a narcissist will complement each other. But the narcissist- or “emotional vampire”, a more poetic and accurate term- will get bored and the co-dependent will get frustrated.

“T” sees game as an attempt by CDs to flip the script on Ns- to become the narcissist, the one manipulating to get their desires met. This will lead to a feeling of power and control the CD never had before, but is ultimately futile because it’s the same unhealthy game played from the other side. Furthermore the CD isn’t really an N, and ultimately this will blow up on him, of which he gives examples.

The N enjoys positive attention from men, and will give them enough encouragement to keep it coming without ever getting sexually or romantically involved with the guy. Some great portion of game is just not doing this- playing it cool to let her know she can’t toy with you to get her ego boosted. Instead you withhold and try to get her to meet your needs- submission and sex- in return for positive attention. Since an N won’t do this naturally, it’s a highly unstable relationship.

“T” continues to say that the real solution to this is not to become a narcissist, but to become self-aware of childhood wounds and instead of manipulating people to achieve unrealistic goals, behave in a mature and psychologically healthy matter. Great advice, if only it were that easy.

Being psychologically damaged and unhealthy, my objections are probably not valid, but I’ll make them anyway. Narcissism and co-dependency are features to one degree of most people’s’ personalities and most relationships. Being completely mentally healthy and dealing with people in a healthy way is as unrealistic as solving your childhood traumas by becoming lovable as an adult.

Bill, the reader in question, is a beta, and reading his story I don’t feel any great fear for him or his future. He has had a couple of dysfunctional relationships due to his childhood trauma, but he’s 18, so he’s just learning about life in the normal way. He’ll learn something from these relationships, probably not enough, probably get married, likely get divorced, maybe get married again. He’ll lead a normal life, which is not necessarily a happy one, but as I have said being a beta isn’t so bad. Enjoying some of the benefits of life is better than enjoying none.

“T” quotes from something called Schema Therapy, which is like most psychological theories but maybe more discerning. It posits three possible reactions to childhood trauma (or “primary inferiority”)- freezing, or accepting the need to be responsible for the feelings of others, overcompensation, or rebelling and becoming a manipulator and a taker, and avoidance, or avoiding situations where you are involved with other people at all. He only mentions this in passing, which is disappointing because it’s the basic omega strategy. But his subject, Bill, is a beta, as are most readers, and so the beta strategy of co-dependent surrender or freezing is the one of most interest.

My “primary inferiorities” are my cold, withdrawn parents, whose emotional well-being I felt responsible for. I was on my way to being a beta co-dependent when I began to suffer a lot of abuse at school, which killed most of my kind sentiment for other people and caused me to try to isolate myself as much as possible. When I got around to experimenting with women, I did so in a kind of narcissistic mode, but not being an actual narcissist it was more I was putting up a front to protect myself than feeding off the attention. When I got involved with women I actually cared about, I have been pretty co-dependent as far as I can tell.

It’s not really easy for an omega to become a beta co-dependent, although that might seem like way to step up the food chain. Omegas don’t have the emotional experiences and social skills to provide the “blood” the emotional vampire wants. You can, as I did, become narcissistically manipulative with a woman who does desire you. “T” has a prefered option which he calls becoming a “renaissance man” which is like my “lone wolf” concept but fleshed out. I’ll talk more about this later, especially the “three faces”.

4 Responses to Psychology on The Rawness

  1. YOHAMI says:

    Been there.

    What I dont like about occidental stuff and psychology is that “healthy” is nowhere to be found or open to interpretation. I often reach the point of “ok, thanks for the analysis, now what should I do” and it gets less clear from there on.

    Occidental stuff excels at analysis but is bad for giving direction.

    So… we have three forms of response, 1) freezing/surrender/codependend, 2) overcompensating/narcissist/vampire, 3) avoidance/omeganess, which one is the proper? which one is the healthy one?

    I guess all of them are valid and healthy ones. I can see all of these being equally good or bad depending on the context. There’s some stuff is GOOD to avoid, some stuff is good to overcompensate, some stuff that is good to surrender to. And likewise some stuff will make you sick if you avoid, etc.

    I think the problem comes with fixating in one of the modes.

    And I guess the therapy is about removing the fixations and allowing you to handle all three kind of responses at free will. Or if it’s not, it should be.

    • You can analyze the crap out of things and it really doesn’t do you much good. Simple action to get going in the right direction is needed. My sister has been going to a therapist for three years now, I think. She mainly needs to overcome her lack of energy- hard to do with anxiety and depression, I know, but still necessary- and get out of the house and do things and enjoy life. She goes to a Curves gym and is making some effort to lose weight, and has lost a little, although I can’t really tell. She needs to go to a real gym, get a real trainer and diet, get a makeover and lower her standards to a reasonable point. If you do things like that, your life won’t be perfect, but at least it will be more fun.

  2. krauserpua says:

    For what its worth, I think the Omega-Sigma transition is easier (and more rewarding) than the Omega-Beta transition. Being omega, you already have the introversion, independence and resistance to being pulled into other people’s frame. To turn sigma you essentially have to be a cooler versionof yourself, to turn the weakness into strength. Not easy, of course, but its change within a much smaller channel than going beta and bringing in all the people-pleasing and connectedness that you might not enjoy anyway.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: