The Game is a social situation where Winning or Losing is assumed to occur, and empathy is blocked away. If you get caught up in the Game, you've already lost. It's a back and forward play with no productive outcome, just like the Master-Slave relationships. The Game is not about coming to terms; it's about proving Them wrong. It's not about you being happy, it's about Them being unhappy. It's not about being honest and vulnerable, it's about being tough and strategic. It's a mechanism that feeds one's false-self but provides no real value in the long run.
People have unwritten rules about communication, mostly based on reciprocity. The perfect communication is the one where the desires of both interlocutors are met. You give me what I want, I give you what you want. Miscommunication occurs when at least one of the conversational partners cease to receive the desired feed. A variety of emotions would indicate that this has happened: anxiety, fear, boredom, frustration, anger, shame, guilt, or sadness.
There is, however, a type of communication that does not require reciprocity: Donation. Favors and gifts are one-sided transactions of preferred content that demand nothing in return. Gifts are material, favors are non-material (free services). To reject a donation, or to refuse donating, are both perfectly acceptable and non-offensive behaviors. In the former case, because you don't find the gesture preferable; hence, it's not really a favor nor a gift. In the second case, because you don't owe anybody a favor. Don't mistake donation for restitution - the latter is a way to make up for a lack of reciprocity. Make sure you clarify whether you are asking or being asked for a favor or restitution.
Individuals prefer different kinds of communication. Depending on their psychological state, people might look for one thing or the other, as the preferred feedback in a conversation. Some people prefer to talk a lot, others prefer to listen. Some prefer to debate, others like to talk about agreeable topics. Some appreciate discussing relevant issues, others prefer talking about irrelevant bullshit. You can never know, everybody's different. I call this factors "feed submodalities". Here is a full list of them:
Logical: feedback/no feedback.Asking a question automatically presupposes that an honest answer is preferred. Otherwise one wouldn't even want to ask the question in the first place. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the content of the answer is preferable. It's the answer itself that has to be preferable, or in other words, it has to be honest. Basically, you're obliged to say the truth, even if it's horribly painful.
Verbal: agreeable/disagreeable, relevant/irrelevant, acceptable/offensive, valuable/useless.
Physiological: congruent/incongruent, matching/mismatching, close/away, loud/quiet, low/high, fast/slow, intonation. Physiological submodalities are about one's body language. A person's body language is incongruent when it contradicts their verbal message. A matching body language is one that is similar to your interlocutor's body language.
There are three main types of miscommunication that I have discovered: Unwanted Feedback, Vicious Cycle, and Dishonest Feedback. Let's have homosexuals Bob and Alan talking at the coffee table, and give out examples for each type of miscommunication:
Unwanted Feedback: Alan says, "Hey Bob, your hair looks great today". Bob is happy to hear that, and he replies back, "Yours, too, Alan". Needles to say, Alan hates his hair, and he perceives Bob's comment as a sarcastic insult. "Fuck you, Bob! My hair is SHIT", he replies. Bob sent out the wrong signal to Alan, and Bob's message was thus not reciprocal. Bob is responsible for the miscommunication because he was either being disrespectful, or he was unaware of what Alan's preferences were.Reciprocity wise, one can be a Creditor, or a Debtor. Creditor is the person who currently weighs more on the scale of reciprocity, and Debtor is the interlocutor who was sent a preferred message and is now expected to reciprocate. In the very beginning, when the conversation starts, the initiator is the one who requests attention. In order to give attention, the other side has to change his/her priorities. Because of that, the initiator is essentially a Debtor. During a conversation, it may be hard to trace back who's the Creditor and who's the Debtor, but it doesn't even matter. Because if you're the Debtor and you didn't reciprocate, you will be informed. If not, it's the Creditor's responsibility that he/she didn't let you know. Therefore, you're always in the clear. Assume that you're a Neutral - either wait for input, or send a message.
Vicious Cycle: Bob takes Alan's anger personally, and he scoffs back: "Way to be nice, asshole". Now, Bob should have interpreted Alan's outburst as an indication of his preferences; instead, he snapped back at him. Alan was sent the wrong type of feed, and reacted accordingly. Bob is responsible for the miscommunication because he gave Alan the wrong material to work with, in the first place. Instead of taking responsibility, he invited Alan to enter the Game.
Dishonest Feedback: Alan hates when Bob snaps back at him. He's now in the Game, though, and he decides to Win by coming off as the morally superior. "I'm really sorry, baby. I'm just having a bad hair day". What happens next is, Bob keeps attacking him: "It was very rude of you". Alan received the wrong type of feed, but he was incapable of indicating his disapproval. Alan is thus responsible for the miscommunication because instead, he sent out positive signals which assured Bob that reciprocity had been met.
How do we handle miscommunication? As soon as your emotions hint that something is wrong with the conversation, indicate so, ASAP. What has happened in the past does not matter. Make no compromise, make no excuses that might justify the miscommunication. Instead, indicate as soon as possible, no matter if you're the Debtor or the Creditor. You will learn to enjoy awkward situations and even find them entertaining, when you realize who's responsible for their occurrence, and when you clearly realize what your preferences are.
Be angry! You are entitled to your anger whenever someone's being disrespectful to you. You are being disrespected when you are deliberately given unwanted feed. How do you know if it was intended? If the person is clearly aware of your preferences, but keeps violating them, you know there's something wrong going on. So make sure you let him/her know that you find his/her behavior to be disrespectful and explain why.
If you are a Creditor, and you receive unwanted feedback, you could either ask a question, make a statement, or exit the conversation. The most open-minded thing to do is to ask a question; Share what you observe and ask what to make of it. Alan could have asked Bob, "Do you honestly think my hair looks great, or were you making fun of it?". If you wanna make a statement, share how you feel in the moment, and congruently speak out your opinion. Alan could have said, "I am feeling very upset right now. I think my hair looks horrible".
If you are a Debtor, and you've been signaled that your feedback was perhaps unwanted, you could either ask a question, paraphrase what you've said, or apologize. If you want to go with the question, ask if the Creditor finds your message preferable to accept at this moment. Bob, could have asked Alan, "Did that hurt you, baby?". If you want to paraphrase, find other ways of delivering your message and/or explaining how the Creditor can relate to it. Advertise your feed. Bob could have said, "My perception of your hair is strongly biased by how much I love you".
Human automatic behavior allows for cheating in the process of reciprocation. Emotions that we find positive are prioritized and thus, someone who's influencing us to experience our preferred emotions can be perceived as being reciprocal. Factually, this is true, but if mixed with unwanted feed, preferred emotions can act like a Trojan horse in the long run. When this happens, one would usually feel ambivalent and paralyzed.
There are ways to get around being manipulated in such way. Imagine the Debtor delivering the message in a neutral state. Would you still feel the same way about it? Would you accept the message if it were delivered to you by someone whom you didn't like, or by a robot? Was the emotional rush what you expected to get in return for your input, or did you expect something more than that? Did the Debtor switch your beefsteak for a lollipop?
When you want to end a conversation, it's because you stopped getting what you prefer at this moment - the conversation is no longer your priority. Therefore, you have the perfect right to leave, because the other side can't possibly be reciprocal to you anymore. If you're leaving as a Debtor, apologize or give gratitude before your departure, and do not wait for feedback. Expecting feedback would be disrespectful. If you're leaving as the Creditor, you don't have to announce your departure. The person on the other side shouldn't feel guilty, because it was your preference that you get no more feedback from him/her, and therefore you have "received" the preferred lack of feedback. Respectfully, if someone is ending the conversation with you, the right thing to do is to not respond, unless the person is a Creditor who expects your feedback.
