A few days ago I made some comments on Krauser’s history of game, but I would like to expand on that.
He starts out with the highly technical breakdown of initial interaction between strangers he calls “Aspy game”. I have never appreciated this kind of analysis. I like technical things, but with machines, not people. My greatest thing in life is to be in the moment, to be so wrapped up in an activity that it demands all my senses and all my intellect. I like any kind of adrenaline activity, with machines or not. I have a lot of trouble analyzing interaction in this way or thinking of people in dispassionate way.
But, “any interaction that doesn’t involve getting laughed at and their head flushed down the toilet” is an accomplishment for a lot of guys, and the ability to have an interaction for some time that doesn’t get immediately cut off in a cold dismissal.
For some reason, my mind jumps to my military terrorism training. (The fact that pickup and terrorism are closely associated in my mind shows how screwed up I am, but in my formative years I dealt with a lot of social terrorism, so it’s not so strange.) If you are taken hostage, we were told, be friendly and conversant with your captors, while not denigrating your own side or taking theirs. The idea was that they would see you as a human being, and that would make it harder for them to kill you.
The real point of any human interaction, it seems to be, is to show your own humanity and experience that of the other. Technical game seems to scrupulously avoid that. A lot of human interaction avoids that. On the other hand, a lot of people when they see the real me think I’m an asshole, so I can see the value in this. For meeting basic needs- like succeeding at a job interview or a sales call, or for that matter getting sex- this is desirable and necessary. Once you’ve gotten laid a few times, just doing it doesn’t appeal that much, or doesn’t to me anyway. But as Krauser points out, these guys weren’t getting laid, so that was what they wanted- to conceal the self that might be rejected and project a self that would be accepted.
He next goes on to criticize- a little more harshly it seems- “natural game” as characterized by Real Social Dynamics. I have seen some of “The Blueprint Decoded” and it’s very powerful on some level. Regardless of what Krauser says, social interactions do occur in a frame and that frame is flexible to some extent. He’s right that some of these things, like AMOGing in my opinion, are childish and obnoxious. You can have your own frame without busting up someone else’s. The typical social frame that a low- to middle-status male who would be interested in game would encounter however is that he is not an important or worthwhile person and should shut up and keep to himself around the cool people. I don’t see anything wrong with kicking that kind of game in the balls, but just because people can’t beat you up as an adult isn’t reason to go up to a group of people and goof on the biggest guy. I think the thing that good persuaders do is maintain their own strong frame while respecting that of others. That takes a lot of inner strength to do, but it’s a worthy goal.
He doesn’t say much about what he calls “Asshole Game” or what might be best termed “Roissy Game”. Roissy game is at base pretty simple modeling- how does the cool guy who gets the girls act, why, and how to act like that. He sees Roissy game as obsessively antagonistic but I think that’s a product of where Roissy is- Washington, DC where there are a lot of women who are very proud of their education, jobs and resulting percieved status, women who by virtue of working there are obsessed with power above all else. I’ll bet women in DC are even tougher nuts to crack than women in Manhattan, who probably have more aesthetic and hedonic sense. With any woman you are going to have to be more dominant than her, and if you are dealing with power and status obsessed women, you will have to act accordingly.
He quickly moves on to what he calls “Galt Game”, maybe best characterized these days by Roosh, who is traveling the world having sex with foreign women with no intention of every coming back. “Galt Game” is of little practical value to most men, and as Krauser points out can be positively dangerous. An older guy with marketable job skills may be able to relocate overseas and live well, but a young guy can lose out on critical years of development and be forced to come back home to bad prospects. In Israel there is a tradition of young people going backpacking for a year, after they leave mandatory military service and before starting college. In Britain they have what they call a “gap year”. Going out and seeing the world on the cheap for a year as a young person is a great idea, and it’s a big status thing as well. An older guy going out to teach English for an indefinite period is looking at a grim future.
All these things have some value, and all have some drawbacks. All of them are promoted unrealistically, because that’s what people how promote things do, make them sound better than they really are. What you can do will have some hard limit you can’t surpass, and while you shouldn’t expect or shoot for too much, don’t shoot for or expect too little either. Finding where that limit is a worthy goal, but the experience and the journey is a goal in itself.
I have said it before and I will say it again- what you need most as an omega is a set of portable technical job skills that pay reasonably well and don’t depend on your personality. Computer skills or something like aircraft mechanics are an example. If they are valuable in the US, they will probably be valuable elsewhere. If this interests you, get the training and get some experience and then look at the possibilities overseas.
The most important things for omegas are objective value creation and inner game. First you need functional job skills, functional job social skills, and decent clothes. Then you need good exercise, health and nutrition. Then you need an enjoyable personal life, hobbies and activities that serve no other purpose than to make you happy.
The implied message of game is a pretty bad one, that your value as a human being and your ability to be happy depends on the acceptance of other people, especially women, and you should be prepared to do pretty much anything to get that. I don’t believe that, and I hope you don’t either. At the same time, we do need acceptance from others, if only to survive. We need acceptance from women to get sex, a basic human need that is not met by pornography and masturbation. If that acceptance is based on being phony and manipulative, well that only makes us like most other people.
I think RSD “The Blueprint Decoded” is right in that there is a great deal of power in being real, and beyond that it’s the happiest way to be. Be yourself- be what you have to be, and to the extent you have a choice, what you really want to be- and then choose to be around people, women and others, who like that person.