Re: Isn't "Games people play" the biggest psychology blockbuster in American publishing history?

Posted by Margaret on January 05, 2002 at 23:37:02:

In Reply to: Isn't "Games people play" the biggest psychology blockbuster in American publishing history? posted by Diarmuid on January 04, 2002 at 09:45:20:

: Surprised people so unfamiliar with it. It says 60 million copies sold. Even if that's only half true, that puts it into the same sales league as the Bible. I've seen references to it all over the place. I got the impression that a "game" is usually joyless, pretty much always destructive, and fundamentally dishonest.

***Like you said, it's an older book, so the younger folks naturally are likley not be familiar with it. Most likely, the older ones are. I find the Adult, Parent, Child relatinoships interesting, and good to be aware of, so you can know what to look for and what to avoid.

However, on the main, I don't see how practical it is, because it does not show you how to resolve things, if anything, it only leaves you more fustrated, thinking that others are 'saying mean things on purpose'. First of all, I don't think that's right, I doubt most people are trying to be 'mean on purpose', and second regardless of whether they are or not, what good does that do to focus on that?

Much better to separate the people from the problems or issues and concerns at hand. Better books, much more practical and appliable, have come out since, in particular, the whole series of "Getting Past No" and "Getting to Yes", etc, by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Pattoon. It's a whole series of titles that deal with negotiating expectations and 'getting somewhere' with others. These same principles can be just as easily applied to personal as well to business relationships.

Although nice to know, in the end, 'games people play' doesn't 'get anywhere', doesn't teach you how to accomplish something while keeping it civilized and realistic. It just 'people play games on purpose'. So what? Who cares? Meanwhile, life goes on, and people need to know how to 'get somewhere'. Make progress with others, while keeing it civilized. That's what life is. (On a realistic, practical level that is.)

: A typical example of a game described in a book is where a husband more or less deliberately makes or allows his wife screw up (by failing to take simple, obvious precautions) just so he can get pissed at her and start a shouting argument. On the surface, he's shouting because of the fuck-up, but in reality he wanted the fuck-up to happen so he'd have an excuse to shout at her. In fact, he engineered the situation towards this fuck-up by giving her tasks that were obviously beyond her skill.

****Again, I highly doubt this guy engineered this on purpose, just to have an excuse to shout at her. If he wanted to shout at her so bad, he would have just shouted (about anything). Most likely realistic case is that he thought she could get a,b,c,d (the whole house, for example) done. She ended up only getting a and b (half the house). And he got upset because now he feels 'shorted'. Well, to avoid that, I'd say, she needs to work on not overpromising and underdelivering, and he needs to include, plan for losses in his forecasts of what he thinks she will actually get done. Once he starts including losses in his plans (ie. Expecting her to come up with only half of what she says she can get) he will now know what to realistically expect, and no longer feel disappointed and let down, and she, well, obviously she needs to work on her credibility and stop promising she can do what is beyond her ability, so that she doesn't keep 'shorting' his expectations all the time.

: This is a half-assed description of the book. Primer seems to know it better. It's pretty short and an interesting read. I look upon these games as mini-tragedies caused by a lack of honesty and logic. Well, of course a four will look at it that way.

: : : I didn't understand the phrase's meaning til I read "Games people play" six months ago. It's from a pre-women's rights, pre-sexual revolution era so it's quite dated. But it's got a lot of positives.

: : : It's sad to think of people doing this, subconsciously engineering conflicts. Worse, it's *illogical*. In a world where the population is hostile or indifferent, you need a damn good reason for two people to fight...

: : What kind of head games are we talking about?

Follow Ups:

• Re: Isn't "Games people play" the biggest psychology blockbuster in American publishing history? Diarmuid 10:03:10 01/06/02 (1)
  • one step at a time & half full vs. half empty Margaret 10:44:07 01/06/02 (0)

Post a Followup