Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    	Frankly, I disagree -- to me, a power play *is* a head game.  But
    then to me, a head game is any spoken word or action which is not in-
    dicative of your *true* feelings, and whose intent is to provoke some
    reaction in the other person to "see what they're made of" (which
    strikes me as total bullwhicky).  There's a quote from Dune that goes:


    	"To know a thing well, know its limits.  Only when pushed beyond its	
    tolerances will its true nature be seen."


    	And this is all very true and so forth, but I do *not* believe or
    advocate the practice of trying to goad folks into dancing on your
    strings for your personal approval or satisfaction.  It takes time and
    patience, but there are other ways of learning about folks.  For
    example, *talking* to them.  ;-)  If they're open and honest, you'll
    learn what you want to know, and if they're not, I'd just as soon know
    that up front anyway.


    Brian

    
    	A head game is what you do instead of making love.
    
    	Joe Jasniewski
    

    
    
    	Well it's kind of hard for me to put into words but I'll try.
    
    	I call it a "tease".  Like the guy I mentioned in the other note.
    	He knew my attraction to him and played up to it but not letting
    	me quite have him.  He never had to say anything, he biggest
    	weapon was (and still is) his eyes.  Maybe that's just because
    	nice eyes is one of the first things I notice on people.  He has
    	very "deep" eyes.  Ones that if I looked into them too long,
    	I would think he would be able to read my mind.
    
    	The only time he really would do this was when I was in a 
    	relationship with someone else.  We saw each other every 
    	weekend as we went to the same "hangout".  So it was a constant
    	thing.
    
    	Like I said, it's hard for me to put it into words but it's
    	like tying a starving person's hands behind their back and
    	then hanging a piece of food in front of them.  You know
    	it's there but you can't have it.
    
    

    
    Steve,
    
    See if this makes it a bit more clear.  Say person "A" is attracted to
    person "B" and person "B" knows it.  Person "B" would be playing head
    games if he/she played on person "A"'s attraction to him/her.  For
    example, person "B" encouraging person "A" to think the attraction is
    mutual and then suddenly doing an about face, leaving person "A" to
    feel let down.  Then, just as suddenly, person "B" gives person "A"
    another indication that just maybe the attraction really is mutual, and
    so on.  Pretty soon person "A" doesn't know whether he/she is coming or
    going.  This is a head game.
    
    - Beckie

    A head game is when one person manipulates another using some sort
    of mental/emotional ploy.  Head games get in the way of communication,
    and annoy people who are the recipients, because it makes them feel:
    
    a.  like fools
    b.  looked-down-upon by the perpetrator
    
    -Jody
    

Sometimes the difference between a head game and true feelings is merely
the difference between not being honest and being honest.

There have been women in my life that I felt very attracted to when they
were, as Judy put it, unavailable or attached to someone else.  Then, if
they became available, or seemed to really want me, then I was no longer
so attracted to them.

If this repeats several times, the woman might claim I was playing
"head games".

But, instead I could acknowledge, and say something like "I've noticed that
when you become available to me I lose interest in you, then when you're
unavailable I become very attracted to you.  I'll always care about you
as a friend and not want to lose track of you".

Now, if the woman accepts this pattern in me, along with my honesty in
acknowledging it, it's no longer a head game, it's just the way it is.
I've got at least one woman friend with whom I have this very pattern, but
it's not a "head game".

/Eric

    
    re: .4
    
    	Exactly!!
    
    

    re:6                                
>    There have been women in my life that I felt very attracted to when they
>were, as Judy put it, unavailable or attached to someone else.  Then, if
>they became available, or seemed to really want me, then I was no longer
>so attracted to them.                                                      
        
>    But, instead I could acknowledge, and say something like "I've noticed that
>when you become available to me I lose interest in you, then when you're
>unavailable I become very attracted to you.  I'll always care about you
>as a friend and not want to lose track of you".

>Now, if the woman accepts this pattern in me, along with my honesty in
>acknowledging it, it's no longer a head game, it's just the way it is.
    
    This isn't true honesty, as far as I am concerned, and is in fact,
    a head game, whether or not this woman accepts it. The point of 
    dishonesty is within yourself, and probably involves your own 
    fear of commitment, by the mixed messages you give off. You are
    giving off the message that you are available and interested
    UNTIL the woman, who was unavailable, becomes available. Suddenly
    you switch gears, and lose interest. The true feeling we are
    discussing here is "fear", not it's interpetation as "loss of
    attraction".
    
    -roger
    
      

    
>    This got me to wondering:  what is a "head game", and how is it
>    different from a "power play" or some other interaction?
    


	 Headgames.....

	 I find the headgames that hurt the most are the ones that
	 people "mean well" by.

	 Examples of headgames....

	 �  Portraying yourself as being a shoulder to lean on, and
	 then not wanting to be there for them when they need that
	 shoulder.

	 �  Not breaking a relationship off with someone simply
	 because you know they are not ready to go at it alone...so
	 perpetuating the idea that there is something possible still
	 there, when there is not.

	 �  Getting to be friends with someone and having them trust
	 in you, when all you mean to do is find out some good
	 "information" about them.  (Playacting at friendship).

	 �  Manipulating someone into doing something for you. (Saying
	 "I love you" simply to hear it back).

	 �  Making love to someone for your gratification, not theirs.

	 
	 Basically, I think it is doing/saying/acting a certain way
	 because of someone else--portraying yourself to be something
	 you are not so as to aid or manipulate or hurt someone else.


	 Honesty is the best policy...but with others AND with
	 yourself.

	 Yes, you CAN play headgames without meaning to.....with every
	 good intention in your heart.	 


	 kath

	 

Now, let's be a bit more scientific here. Instead of trying various
examples, let's come up with some rigorous definitions. Needless to
say, the following is IMHO and does not represent opinions of the
management. 

A HEAD GAME is a statement or act, intended to elicit a specific
response, rather than to convey a message. In other words, the
player has a hidden agenda. The head game act or statement may
--or may not-- be dishonest, in and of itself, but the **intent**
is always dishonest. 

A POWER PLAY is a move intended to put an opponent at a physical or
mental disadvantage. It could be a head game, as when you feign
great hurt when someone innocently --and harmlessly-- bumps into you
(giving him/her a major guilt trip), or may be entirely 'on the
table', as when taking advantage of a lover's known weakness in a
quarrel. The art of Power Playing is also known as 'oneupmanship'. 

Just a word (or two) concerning previous replies: 

What Judy calls a 'tease' is most often NOT a head game, as both
people are aware of what's going on. More often than not, it's a
power play (which is exactly what the guy she is talking about is
doing. It's a shame, since she deserves a lot better). 

.5's reply most closely approaches my own understanding: "A head
game is when one person manipulates another using some sort of
mental/emotional ploy.". 

.9 raised a very valid point, concerning head games played by well
meaning people. Head games are not always vicious. Further, some
people play head games unknowingly, not because they are devious,
but because they are weak, primitive or both. Some people even fall
prey to their own head games. 

But .9's examples do not illustrate head games. "Portraying yourself
as being a shoulder to lean on... etc." is simply dishonest and
"Making love to someone for your gratification, not theirs". is not
even dishonest, just being a pig. 

-- Ron 

	 Since I didn't get to finish everything in .9...


	 All the examples I presented have been games that have been
	 played with me.

	 Probably the most concise definition I can give for a
	 headgame is...

		"Inducing someone to believe something that is not
		necessarily true, whether through good intentions or
		bad.  With good intentions intending to ease someone's
		mind, but in fact misleading them.  And with bad
		intentions intending to profit in some way from the game."

	 I also believe that people can unknowingly play headgames,
	 because of the way their personality functions, the way they
	 were brought up, etc.

	 kath
	 
	 
	 

     I very recently had the opportunity to see the kind of 'misunderstanding-
in-action' that might be described as unintentional head games.

     Two of my friends are very much interested in each other.  Janet came to 
me for advice (actually just to see my facial reactions).  Anyway, she rambles 
off this dissertation on how Matt is the greatest thing that has ever happened 
to her, she's afraid that she is occupying too much of his time and that he 
may get tired of her.  She decides to force herself to back off and call him 
less often.

     Later Matt mentions nearly the same thing in a similarly rambling style.  
He thinks that he was being too quick with his hands.  He recently noticed that
she has backed-off.  He thinks it is due to his being too aggressive.

     I did finally talk to both of them, and they are better.  However, if
a mutual friend was not there, this could have gone straight down the flusher.
Head games are merely one of the ten-thousand faces of the mis-communication
bugaboo which seems to be in 90% of all problems of human relations.

                                         Greg

    Greg -
    
    That last sentence was *right on*.
    
    Carol
    

I second Ron's attempt (.10) to provide a more rigorous definition.

Scott Peck in "The Different Drum" defines a psychological game as:

  A repetative interaction between two or more individuals in which
  there is an unspoken payoff.  The unspoken payoff implies mis-communication.

I think this defines a "head game" as well.  The purpose of communication
is to increase understanding.  When it is used not for this purpose, but
to manipulate others for some unspoken payoff, this is a head game.

> A HEAD GAME is a statement or act, intended to elicit a specific
> response, rather than to convey a message. In other words, the
> player has a hidden agenda. The head game act or statement may
> --or may not-- be dishonest, in and of itself, but the **intent**
> is always dishonest. 

I agree the intent is always dishonest.   Notice parties may willingly
engage in head games, and the payoff may not be hidden, but the intent
is unspoken and different from what is being said.  Head games to me
imply an attempt to mislead or deceive about one's true intentions.

If a person doesn't know their true intentions, and thus behaves in
a confused or inconsistent manner, is this a head game?  It certainly
might appear as such to an outside observer.

I think there are times when it is appropriate to say things or act in a
way that is intended to solicit a specific response, as long as it is one
of greater understanding.  I also think the nature of the message is often
more important than the intent to convey one.

Next?!

- Peter

>        <<< Note 882.14 by HANNAH::SICHEL "All things are connected." >>>

>I agree the intent is always dishonest.   Notice parties may willingly
>engage in head games, and the payoff may not be hidden, but the intent
>is unspoken and different from what is being said.  Head games to me
>imply an attempt to mislead or deceive about one's true intentions.


	 So, let's say that if someone stays with me during a bad
	 time and tells me they love me, just because they know if
	 they followed their heart which is set on Ms. Right, instead
	 of me, they would most certainly throw me into a mental
	 breakdown, that it is not a headgame?

	 Their intent is to help me....but the really don't love me
	 (at least not in the way they are telling me they do).  After
	 the hard time is over, and he leaves for Ms. Right.....should
	 it not be considered a headgame?

	 Desception is a headgame....whether for good intents or bad.

	 kath

    

    >								After
    >	 the hard time is over, and he leaves for Ms. Right.....should
    >	 it not be considered a headgame?

    >	 Desception is a headgame....whether for good intents or bad.

    >	 kath
    
    
    I wouldn't think of it as such.  That's just pure deception where the
    intention is good (wanting to help you) but the method is bad.  If this
    person were to start coming back only to leave again and again, I would
    call that a head game.
    
    Just my opinion,
    Beckie
    

    
    	I heard a song on the radio last night that brought
    	back memories of the guy in my previous note.  And I
    	think it describes this note too.
    
    	"Borderline" by Madonna.
    
    

 To me, a head game is using deceptive practices to play with someone's
emotions for personal, and usually selfish reasons.

 I do not consider someone trying to let someone off easy as someone playing
head games. There is good intent, and not so good execution.

 Example of head game:

 Priscilla tells Ron that she really likes him. She sort of does, but only as
a backup strategy in case Eric doesn't pan out. That's a head game. If Eric
wants to go out with Priscilla, Ron is dropped like a hot potato. Of course,
if the date isn't that good- she apologizes to Ron until the next time eric
is available.

 The Doctah

RE: .18

>	Example of head game:
>
>	Priscilla tells Ron that she really likes him. She sort of
>	does, but only as a backup strategy in case Eric doesn't pan
>	out. That's a head game. If Eric wants to go out with
>	Priscilla, Ron is dropped like a hot potato. Of course, if
>	the date isn't that good- she apologizes to Ron until the
>	next time eric is available.

To me, Priscilla is simply untruthful, not playing a head game. 

An example that does meet the definition: Priscilla 'inadvertently'
allows Eric to 'discover' that she likes Ron, hoping that Eric
become jealous and pay more attention to her. 

BTW, Priscilla did not drop me for Eric. It was for Elvis.

-- Ron 

	 headgame == playing with someone's head == making someone
	 believe something that isn't correct

	 "headgame" itself is a negative word, but it doesn't always
	 have to have a "negative" purpose.  I don't understand why
	 you guys think that telling someone you love them just to
	 make them feel good about themselves isn't a headgame?

	 Care to elaborate further?  I know I've been hurt by that
	 sort of headgame more than I've been hurt by malicious
	 intent.  People with malicious intent are easy to be angry
	 at, but people with good intent are not.

	 But they've both been deceptive...they've both led my mind
	 into believing something untrue.



	 What's the difference besides the intent?

	 kath

	 

RE: .20

>	 headgame == playing with someone's head == making someone
>	 believe something that isn't correct
>	 ...
>	 But they've both been deceptive...they've both led my mind
>	 into believing something untrue.
>	 ...
>	 What's the difference besides the intent?

You can make a person "believe something that isn't correct" by
either lying to them, or by playing a head game. The two are not the 
same.

The difference is in the method. Playing a head game means one
furtively makes the person arrive at the incorrect conclusion as if
on their own, through some devious action, as opposed to outright
lying. 

So, if a person simply said "I love you" without meaning it, the
person would simply be lying. If the person surreptitiously allowed
you to catch them --say-- longingly look at your picture, THAT would
be a head game. 

-- Ron 

    I believe the appropriate saying is "the road to hell is paved with
    good intentions".

    As far as unintentional headgames, whoever mentioned that your
    personal problems may make you seem to be playing games is right.
    I've found myself pulling away from people I like for fear of being
    there "too much" and making myself unwanted. It's not so much a head
    game as a percieved self protecting action. Right or wrong these
    survival behaviors affect many of us. liesl

    re:22
    
    the road to hell is paved with un-intentions?
    just a thought...   
    
    -roger
    

re .15

If someone tells you they love you to make you feel good even though
their heart isn't in it, their intent may be good, but it's still dishonest.
You could call this a head game, but you could also just call it dishonest.
I prefer to reserve the word "game" for a repetative interaction.
If they do this to you more than once, that's a game.

Your note raises another interesting point.  In english, we only have
one word for "love" even though we sometimes mean different things by it.

In Greek they distinguish three types of love:
  Eros  - the god who excites you to sexual desire.  Passion.
  Amor  - a deep personal relationship.
  Agape - love they neighbor as thyself.  Spiritual love.  Compassion.

I think we sometimes confuse these, but that's another topic...

- Peter

    
    I know this may sound foolish, but I've always considered that the
    people who play headgames are mostly doing it because they are insecure
    with what decisions they have to make and would rather make it seem
    that they have 'done the right thing by not hurting them' than to
    come straight otu and say how they feel. Thay can't deal with their
    own feeling so they play off on somebody to keep their feelings
    hidden from scrutiny. I'm not condoning(sp?) this I abhor as a matter
    of fact. I have gotten myself in alot of trouble by being to straight
    forward and catching somebody in one of these headgames in the past-
    my ex.- and I think if a person feels they have to play a headgame
    then they aren't worth dealing with until they can deal with their
    own feelings why should I let them tear away at mine. I know it's
    another self-preservation move, but hey it works. It's lonely but
    it does work
    

    Andrew, 
    
    I don't think that was at all foolish.  I, too, think that insecurity
    plays a major role in "head games".  The very nature of insecurity
    itself can even compound these games that much more.  Like, when
    one implies something that isn't true, won't correct it when given
    the chance for fear of rejection or ridicule.
    
    Carol
    

    re .24:
    
    Actually, Amor is not Greek. Depending on your politics, it's either
    Latin or French (and depending on your politics there, you might even
    sniff that it's *really* Languedoc). The invention of "amor" is the
    last type of love invented -- it shows up around the 12th century, if
    I'm not mistaken.
    
    in Greek they have three words that can all be translated into "love."
    This is a shade different from the old saw that Greek has three types
    of love.
    
    The three are eros, philia, and agape. Eros might be properly
    translated as "lust" not "love," but it often isn't because "lust" has
    a negative connotation that "eros" doesn't. But that's cultural. The
    word "lust" might shift in the next couple decades and lose that
    connotation. But most often, a broad-minded interpretation of "lust"
    (very much like your word "passion") is pretty much what "eros" means.
    The *god* Eros is the personification of little-e eros.
    
    Philia is most often translated as "brotherly love." Y'know, like in
    Philadelphia, The City of Brotherly Love.
    
    Agape is also much like you said. Compassion, Tolerance, Spiritual
    love.
    
    When we in English talk about love ("I fell in love with Soandso") we
    mean none of the Greek words, we mean "amor." Generally, anyway. Yes,
    yes, I know there are plenty of cynics who will snigger that actually
    is *really* means "eros." I'm often one of them myself. But *politely*,
    we mean "amor."
    
    	Jon

   <<< Note 882.6 by HANNAH::OSMAN "see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240" >>>
            -< it's only a head game if you're not honest about it >-

>There have been women in my life that I felt very attracted to when they
>were, as Judy put it, unavailable or attached to someone else.  Then, if
>they became available, or seemed to really want me, then I was no longer
>so attracted to them.

>If this repeats several times, the woman might claim I was playing
>"head games".

>But, instead I could acknowledge, and say something like "I've noticed that
>when you become available to me I lose interest in you, then when you're
>unavailable I become very attracted to you.  I'll always care about you
>as a friend and not want to lose track of you".

    The above sounds like one of the biggest headgames yet.  But whose?
    
    It is altogther possible that the man (in this case) is attracted to
    the woman when she is unavailable.  It happens.  Some people like to
    create artificial challenges for themselves.
    
    Another scenario that can happen is when the woman suddenly starts
    sending out signals that invite come-ons whenever shes "not available". 
    I suppose it seems safe, because shes married or dating or something of
    the sort, so that she can "come-on" or tease or whatever without risk
    of having to follow-through.  But when shes available, suddenly she may
    be reluctant to send out those signals, cause "what if someone takes
    them seriously?".  
    
    Well, the news of the day is that when a person (man or woman, I've
    seen this on both sides) sends out signals that say one thing, its not
    always obvious that their intent is that the signals are supposed to be
    ignored... "Honey, if I weren't married..." So far in this discussion
    it seems that this might be categorized as a "tease" and let off the
    hook because its not a "head game" per se.
    
    But its the WORST kind of head game.  "I'm going to come on to you and
    see if I can get a reaction just to see if I can do it, and as soon as
    you react I'm going to slam you down hard".   In other words, the
    person is putting on feelings that are NOT real, to see what reaction
    they get.  The player might not consciously recognize the latter part
    of their intentions (the potentially hurtful part), but that happens
    when you don't think through the consequences of your actions.
    
    In the original note that spawned this one about what head games really
    are, the discussion was about a guy who seemed to chronically lose
    interest, pull back, safe-distance, etc.
    
    The question is whether he was doing it to get a reaction from the
    woman involved, or if he was honestly protecting his own personal
    space.  
    
    I have definitely seen both situations, but I think that the latter is
    the more frequent case, especially in long-running relationships.  I
    guess it just doesn't make sense to me that after a period of time with
    one person, and after feelings have developed and grown, that a person
    would suddenly start acting out of character JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
    
    I know what the signals are to watch for now (after a little hard
    experience).  If I find myself safe-distancing or my S.O., then its
    time for some soul-searching to see why. 
    
    But, if you haven't had a great deal of interpersonal training (which
    can be said for 99.99% of the U.S. population, because emotional
    survival doesn't seem to be valued as much as financial survival), then
    it might not be obvious to the the person withdrawing exactly WHAT is
    happening.  They may even think they are "bad" because they are
    experiencing feelings that say they don't love thier partner anymore,
    and they feel just that much more guilty over falling out of love with
    them, and possibly hurting them.
    
    There are a lot of people around that have trouble expressing thier
    emotions.  When you are on the recieving end of a relationship with
    such a person, you might think they are playing games.  But I still
    believe that games are defined in terms of INTENT.  And the
    differentiation between a game-player and a non-game-player is in WHY
    they are doing what they are doing.
    
    If you read the signs in another person (body language, etc.), and
    ASSUME you understand what they are feeling by how they are acting, you
    run a great risk of becoming a game player yourself.
    
    I suppose games can come about by mis-communication, but no matter HOW
    they come about, the only way OUT of a game is to START communication.
    
    Jim
    

    The trouble with the concept "head game" is that it implies that the
    "players" are doing it on purpose... maybe some are... but an awful lot
    of folks are just frail humans struggling with something I've heard
    shrinks refer to as "approach/avoidance."  It sets up when someone is
    very afraid of intimacy and (more than most of us maybe) wants it a
    lot.  Lot of reasons for it.
    
    R.