JGilder vs. IrTradRU ...

[Jerry Freeman]

I'm familiar with game theory and I understand what you're saying, Jim.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[jGilder]

I believe this is an unhealthy game: 'Bait and Bash.'
It's played this way.
You say something provocative, then, when somebody
responds, bash them. Or if they try to be reasonable
try to get them into a quarrel and then bash them.

The goal is to bash people.

There is just one skillful response, namely,
don't take the bait, don't respond.

In my case this applies to what I feel the tactic is that's being used against me. Thanks Jim.

[Walden]

I believe this is an unhealthy game: 'Bait and Bash.'
It's played this way.
You say something provocative, then, when somebody
responds, bash them. Or if they try to be reasonable
try to get them into a quarrel and then bash them.

The goal is to bash people.

There is just one skillful response, namely,
don't take the bait, don't respond.

In my case this applies to what I feel the tactic is that's being used against me. Thanks Jim.

By what? A group of people?

[amar]

here's my vote: jerry's last two posts should be stickys!!

correction, i mean 2nd and 3rd last.

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe this is an unhealthy game: 'Bait and Bash.'
It's played this way.
You say something provocative, then, when somebody
responds, bash them. Or if they try to be reasonable
try to get them into a quarrel and then bash them.

The goal is to bash people.

There is just one skillful response, namely,
don't take the bait, don't respond.

In my case this applies to what I feel the tactic is that's being used against me. Thanks Jim.

JGilder,

I'm sure you are correct about that.

In almost any conversation, and especially in conversations about things people feel strongly about, many people will unconsciously throw "hooks" that are provocative and can turn the discussion into a dysfunctional one.

The thing about interpersonal games is that they're almost always inadvertant on the part of people who get tangled up in them. The term "games" implies that they are voluntary, but they're really not. We get hooked in various ways and wonder why an exchange has gotten complicated. In that respect, the word "games" is misleading, since it would suggest that someone's doing it consciously on purpose.

But anyway, I'm saying that I'm sure your comment is true. The problem is, as Jim said, how to avoid getting pulled into the dysfunctional pattern. One way is to simply not engage the person at all after you've seen that there's a tendency towards provocation and bashing. Another way is to ignore the part of the exchange that's provocative and find something you can seriously and respectfully respond to and see if you can engage the person in a different tone. (Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.)

Best wishes,
Jerry

[jGilder]

Another way is to ignore the part of the exchange that's provocative and find something you can seriously and respectfully respond to and see if you can engage the person in a different tone. (Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.)

I have also tried this with some success, and some major frustration as well.

[Wombat]

The thing about interpersonal games is that they're almost always inadvertant on the part of people who get tangled up in them. The term "games" implies that they are voluntary, but they're really not. We get hooked in various ways and wonder why an exchange has gotten complicated. In that respect, the word "games" is misleading, since it would suggest that someone's doing it consciously on purpose.

This is an interesting idea. I think when other people are winding us up, it almost always looks like it's deliberate. I think I'm a bit less charitable than you, Jerry; I think it probably is quite often deliberate. I could be wrong though; since I work in a world of people who are self-conscious about debating tactics, maybe I just assume that other people are more in control than they actually are.

There are a lot of debating tactics that strike me as unduly provocative. Even worse than the wind up (as far as I am concerned) is the person who responds to a simple question by going right back to the beginning and giving you a lecture 20 times as long as your question which nowhere contains the answer you were looking for. This is a very effective way of disguising the fact that you can't answer the question whilst giving the casual onlooker the impression that you have in depth knowledge your opponent lacks. Of course, this tactic tends to wear the opponent down. For my part, when it's pulled on me I content myself with a sarcastic one-liner—I don't have all day to reply. And what would be the point when my careful reply would simply be met by another rambling lecture.

[susnfx]

There are a lot of debating tactics that strike me as unduly provocative. Even worse than the wind up (as far as I am concerned) is the person who responds to a simple question by going right back to the beginning and giving you a lecture 20 times as long as your question which nowhere contains the answer you were looking for. This is a very effective way of disguising the fact that you can't answer the question whilst giving the casual onlooker the impression that you have in depth knowledge your opponent lacks. Of course, this tactic tends to wear the opponent down.

(An example: George Bush in his press conference the other night. Both my daughter and I noticed it.)

[Jerry Freeman]

The idea that game patterns are often unconscious isn't mine. Berne talks about it in the book Games People Play. His idea was that we pick up patterns of exchange from the people around us, especially our family of origin, beginning before we've become self conscious enough to reflect on what we're doing. The behaviors become so habitual and automatic that we don't realize they follow recognizable patterns or that there's any agency involved on our part.

In families, the shorthand hooks can be so subtle that an outsider may not see them at all, but to the person being hooked, they're very clear. Something as subtle as a slightly sarcastic tone or a certain look can trigger an argument between two people who are especially sensitive to each other's hooks, with each one insisting that the other was being unreasonable and they themselves did nothing provocative.

One of the hallmarks of interpersonal games is that the hooks are often subtle enough that the agent can claim (and usually believes) that s/he didn't do anything provocative. However, if one examines the details of the exchange, s/he may be able to sort out the hooks thrown and the hooked responses. Having done that, s/he can sometimes think of other ways s/he might have responded to a hook or ways to have avoided throwing a hook him/herself, and then start influencing the exchanges towards a more productive pattern.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[ChrisA]

Jerry is 100% right. That's all.

--Chris

[jGilder]

Jerry is 100% right. That's all.

Would you please back this up with some evidence, documentation and analysis?

[jim stone]

There are a lot of debating tactics that strike me as unduly provocative. Even worse than the wind up (as far as I am concerned) is the person who responds to a simple question by going right back to the beginning and giving you a lecture 20 times as long as your question which nowhere contains the answer you were looking for. This is a very effective way of disguising the fact that you can't answer the question whilst giving the casual onlooker the impression that you have in depth knowledge your opponent lacks. Of course, this tactic tends to wear the opponent down.

(An example: George Bush in his press conference the other night. Both my daughter and I noticed it.)

That's politics--you routinely answer questions (which are often
framed to trip you up ('Are you frustrated by the lack of progress
toward your domestic goals?')) as if they are the question
you wished they'd asked. I've never figured out how to do that.
Jimmy Carter did. He would answer questions, first word:
'Yes,' or 'No.' Perhaps this is part of the reason why
he was such a failure as a politician and a success
as a diplomat.

[Jerry Freeman]

Jerry is 100% right. That's all.

Would you please back this up with some evidence, documentation and analysis?

Oh, come on.

Surely, I'm at least 2% wrong.

This reminds me of a quote by an eminent medical educator in a speech to the enrolling class of a prestigious medical school (this was in the preface to one of Arleen's medical reference texts):

"I can tell you with confidence today that fifty percent of what you learn here will eventually be proven to be wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know which fifty percent."

Best wishes,
Jerry

[missy]

and, Jerry, I'll take your statements one step further. Sometimes people "outside" our usual circle - people we work with, people we've just met, or people on an internet board - will unknowingly use one of those hooks that we have been conditioned to responding to. Someone will make a comment, that to them, shouldn't be taken very seriously, and suddenly all hell breaks loose, and they have no idea why. Or they phrase something in a certain way, and will get a rabid junkyard dog in response, which to the original poster seems WAY over the top, but to the responder seems perfectly justified.
If the behavior is "Pavlovian" enough, the responder may not even realize they are doing it.

That's why I try to remember to use things like "I really don't understand what you are saying, could you try to tell me again?" "I don't think I've quite got this posting, could you point me to other data?" "Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying.........?"
But, in the heat of "discussion", I know I'm guilty of NOT doing this. And if the others in the discussion continue to beat me over the head, without at least trying to attempt and see what I'm saying, I'm likely to get even more belligerent (those "hooks" again).

There's also ways to disagree without getting "personal". Since many of us have not actually met in person, it behoves us all to remember we don't really "know" the background and experience of others. You know what "they" say about assuming??!!

Missy

[Jerry Freeman]

and, Jerry, I'll take your statements one step further. Sometimes people "outside" our usual circle - people we work with, people we've just met, or people on an internet board - will unknowingly use one of those hooks that we have been conditioned to responding to. Someone will make a comment, that to them, shouldn't be taken very seriously, and suddenly all hell breaks loose, and they have no idea why. Or they phrase something in a certain way, and will get a rabid junkyard dog in response, which to the original poster seems WAY over the top, but to the responder seems perfectly justified.
If the behavior is "Pavlovian" enough, the responder may not even realize they are doing it.

Good point.

I do that myself (see various threads about religion, consciousness, philosophy, politics). As witness, we now call the honorable Wombat, the honorable Caj, the honorable Dr. Stone, etc. to the stand ... .

Best wishes,
Jerry