No One Plays Truth or Dare, Anymore
Oct. 24th, 2010 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7I had a dream, last night, about truth or dare, or trust games, or trust, in general. I don't rightly remember, anymore, as I meant to make this post earlier this morning. That being said, This might not be as crystal clear as it would have been, but I feel the need to talk about it, nonetheless.
So. When I was younger, we played truth or dare, as I may have mentioned, before. While this definitely included the traditional things that truth or dare included, it also had a special blend of options, devised by people with a really loose sense of morality, and a deep interest in human behaviour. Truth or Dare can be a really special hell when the people you're playing with can figure out the parts of you that you really don't want others to see. But, of course, there was always a shut-off valve. If you were just too terribly fucked up about a statement or an action, you could pass. But ToD is social contract theory in miniature: The more often you break the rules, the more thoroughly people feel they don't have to adhere to the rules when dealing with you. And, after a while, why are we even playing, anymore?
This, by the way, is why people think it's okay to torture suspected terrorists. Just a note.
But anyway, this is my point: There are ways to leverage serious levels of social discomfort in order to make one question oneself and one's actions, and to really Think about what the fuck it is we're doing... That's what Truth or Dare can be used for, at its most nuanced, yeah?
I'm starting to feel like I've written this before...
These day, people like to say that they've "grown up," that they've "grown out of" these party games, or who they were before. I think that's bullshit. i think that what people have done is grow closed, and quiet, and more willing to use "adulthood" as a way not to risk anything in a social situation, because there's so much more to lose. Jobs, kids, houses can all be put in danger if the wrong people think you're "unfit." But what is "fitness," really, if not the ability to grow and adapt, and test limitations?
So many people close down. But some just throw it all to the wind. They have parties where people dance naked in their back yards or living rooms, they have massive make out piles, or orgies, they talk about whatever comes to mind, and bare the darkest parts of themselves in conversation, without need of inebriation. Well. Not much inebriation.
But both of these are the ends of the spectrum. In the middle, with people whom you want to trust, people whom you want to know, there still has to be an entre into the act of trust. There has to be a give and take. There has to be room to be prodded into pushing your boundaries, taking a critical look at yourself, and exposing the ugly, saintly, and/or naughty bits to the light.
I'm not willing to give that up.
So. When I was younger, we played truth or dare, as I may have mentioned, before. While this definitely included the traditional things that truth or dare included, it also had a special blend of options, devised by people with a really loose sense of morality, and a deep interest in human behaviour. Truth or Dare can be a really special hell when the people you're playing with can figure out the parts of you that you really don't want others to see. But, of course, there was always a shut-off valve. If you were just too terribly fucked up about a statement or an action, you could pass. But ToD is social contract theory in miniature: The more often you break the rules, the more thoroughly people feel they don't have to adhere to the rules when dealing with you. And, after a while, why are we even playing, anymore?
This, by the way, is why people think it's okay to torture suspected terrorists. Just a note.
But anyway, this is my point: There are ways to leverage serious levels of social discomfort in order to make one question oneself and one's actions, and to really Think about what the fuck it is we're doing... That's what Truth or Dare can be used for, at its most nuanced, yeah?
I'm starting to feel like I've written this before...
These day, people like to say that they've "grown up," that they've "grown out of" these party games, or who they were before. I think that's bullshit. i think that what people have done is grow closed, and quiet, and more willing to use "adulthood" as a way not to risk anything in a social situation, because there's so much more to lose. Jobs, kids, houses can all be put in danger if the wrong people think you're "unfit." But what is "fitness," really, if not the ability to grow and adapt, and test limitations?
So many people close down. But some just throw it all to the wind. They have parties where people dance naked in their back yards or living rooms, they have massive make out piles, or orgies, they talk about whatever comes to mind, and bare the darkest parts of themselves in conversation, without need of inebriation. Well. Not much inebriation.
But both of these are the ends of the spectrum. In the middle, with people whom you want to trust, people whom you want to know, there still has to be an entre into the act of trust. There has to be a give and take. There has to be room to be prodded into pushing your boundaries, taking a critical look at yourself, and exposing the ugly, saintly, and/or naughty bits to the light.
I'm not willing to give that up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:08 am (UTC)Playing Devil's advocate here:
Why? Why should we converse with you, why should we open ourselves? Many times you've talked about what you want, and what you would like people to do.
Here's my question: What's in it for us?
(For the record I am asking in a spirit of enquiry as opposed to criticism or ridicule - or even disagreement)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:24 am (UTC)Seriously, though, I really like it when people notice those things about me.\
What do you gain, from this? If I'm allow and if i'm doing my job well, you get me trying to break down any walls you've built around yourself, or at least helping you understand what those walls are made of, what purpose they were supposed to serve, and how you can go about living without them, whenever you're ready.
And you get me asking you to help me do the same. Or at least feign an interest, while I talk it out.
Is that enough? If not, what would be?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 04:09 am (UTC)And all I want, in return, is that you want the same for me. Not your money, not your worship.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 04:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 04:22 am (UTC)How does one convince someone to invest in you? To *allow* you access to them. It's all very well stating that you care, that all you wish is reciprocity, but that is unusual, and people aren't inclined to invest in the unusual without some kind of recommendation.
You mention safe-guards, but what assurance do people have that the safe-guard is real?
Let's put it this way:
"Brand D is a revolutionary new product capable of elevating mood, self esteem, and changing your life for the better. It's so good, we're giving it away FREE. We don't want anything, we just want to make you better at being you!"
If you saw that attached to a product what would you think?
What about:
"Brand D is the cutting edge intellectual and emotional stimulant. Building on tried and tested techniques of intrapersonal discourse and combining them with a unique flair and vision of the future, Brand D offers a new way to become the strong, confident and self aware person that everyone desires to be.
Don't believe us? Then try this introductory discussion module, with no obligation. See how easily Brand D can slot into your existing life and produce permanent positive change, increase your options and allow YOU to take control.
We're sure that once you've been introduced to the techniques within the free session, you'll begin to understand why so many people just like you love Brand D for its effectiveness and versatility!
In fact, we're so sure that, mad as it may seem, we're giving the REST of the sessions away for free. All we're asking you to do is take a few moments to write an honest review of the product - that's it!
We believe in Brand D, and what it can do, and we're confident that you'll agree with us in no time at all, because it REALLY IS that good. So ask yourself: Can I really afford to miss out on this opportunity to try Brand D?"
Now, ignoring the marketing spam - can you see how the appeal to self interest is different in these two?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 05:13 am (UTC)You see, I have two levels of problem, here:
1) The kinds of people who are going to be pulled in by the first type are the people who are already likely to be wanting to do this, while the kinds of people who are going to be pulled in by the second type are the kind of people I don't want to talk to.
2) Type Two Are Exactly The Kind Of People I Want To Want To Talk To. More like than not, this can only be done via implementation of Type 2 strategy.
Which kind of makes me nauseated.
Think about this: Try appending the last two pieces of Strategy Type 2 to ST1, and see how it feels.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 12:38 am (UTC)In fact, we're so sure that, mad as it may seem, we're giving the REST of the sessions away for free. All we're asking you to do is take a few moments to write an honest review of the product - that's it!
We believe in Brand D, and what it can do, and we're confident that you'll agree with us in no time at all, because it REALLY IS that good. So ask yourself: Can I really afford to miss out on this opportunity to try Brand D?
Hmm. For me this doesn't work at all if I place myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't already know you and what you do. The reason Strategy Two works is that the language is one that moves into familiar territory - that of the reader.
Even combining the two, I count at 4 references to 'you'/the reader compared to at least 8 in Strategy 2. Now, granted some of this is due to the difference in length, but I'm sure you can see what I mean - it gives more control of the text to the reader.
It's not all about the product - a lot of it's about them. They trust themselves, even they don't initially trust you. The initial contact is risk free and it's all about them. After they've made the contact, they act as their own testimonial to themselves.
Once they are comfortable, once you're in their world, then you can begin changing it from the inside out. We all like to have people we can trust, don't we? We all use them to help judge newcomers to our sphere, plus our own judgement, yes? It's that final casting vote that matters and that's not only what you need to go for, the caster of that vote is who you want to talk to in order to do your job - which you've pretty much stated; that you want people to discover the core of themselves, assuming I'm reading you right?
And if I am, then you know what I'm getting at. It may sound like I'm saying 'if you can't beat them, join them' and in all honesty, that's what it's useful to appear to be saying on the surface. However, the issue isn't what lies on the surface, the important thing is what lies a little deeper, as usual.
Underneath it all, there's the notion of immunity. Dead cultures are injected into the system to sensitize it, manufacture antibodies. The most successful pathogens are those that can hide inside cells and actually use the body's own machinery to manufacture more of themselves.
Anything too different instantaneously gets attacked - that's a basic rule of systems defence and human psychology, isn't it? Would you rather accept help from a stranger with a drawn sword, or one who offered to break bread with you, to help you maintain bodily integrity and that of your world?
Now personally, I'd be curious about the sword-bearer, but I wouldn't invite him into my house, unless I was in a culture where this sometimes happened.
There's a reason gods took human and animal form to enter the human world, isn't there? There's a reason people stick to people 'like them' and dismiss or don't notice things that look too close like the dead vaccines they've been immunized against - the New Age is harmless etc, magic is dressing up and mumbling strange names, or throwing fireballs around.
Except magic is actually a re-ordering, a tactical arrangement of circumstances and hidden currents, it's remaking the world - attacking the 'reality' of the status quo. It ends worlds and begins new ones - a fundamental disruption of the system - that if comprehended can be unnerving to most.
People don't like the applecart upending - it's seen as unnatural. But if you can make it seem natural, they'll let you do anything.
Also...why does Strategy 2 nauseate you?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 12:55 am (UTC)And it bothers me because it's... pandering. The very fact that you mention, that people are so afraid of the things which can, in fact, be good for them just... Disgusts me.
Even though that's based in a rational fear of what can harm them, one should be able make the attempt to distinguish the beneficial from the detrimental.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:44 am (UTC)Disgusts you? I find it interesting that you experience such a physical reaction.
pander (n.)
"arranger of sexual liaisons, one who supplies another with the means of gratifying lust," 1520s, "procurer, pimp," from M.E. Pandare (late 14c.), used by Chaucer ("Troylus and Cryseyde"), who borrowed it from Boccaccio (who had it in It. form Pandaro in "Filostrato") as name of the prince who procured the love of Cressida (his niece in Chaucer, his cousin in Boccaccio) for Troilus. The story and the name are of medieval invention. Spelling influenced by agent suffix -er. The verb meaning "to indulge, to minister to base passions" is first recorded c.1600. Related: Pandered; pandering.
That word too, seems a very interesting choice. Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational; the reason I think your combinatory strategy isn't as affective - and I do mean affective instead of effective, in the context of making contact/impression - is that the surety makes no external reference.
You are aware of your capabilities, and the reader is not, so you may be seen as asking someone to infer the fact that you are indeed an authority who is capable of self-validating his statements.
It's as if your language and thought processes are a priori based, at least as far as that text goes.
"[O]ne should be able make the attempt to distinguish the beneficial from the detrimental."
Step back a little and look with me here:
Is 'should' used in that sentence as a stating of your belief, or as an implicative of fact/correct thinking? I quite agree that it's *useful* thinking, but a 'correct' way of thinking? I'm not so sure.
Now, in a short timeframe, you don't have time to state all your credentials do you? I agree you have to make certain assumptions and that's fine, because humans make short-cuts; visual stimuli, associative thinking etc.
For example, I bet if this text was delivered with an accompanying pic of yourself in that suit from *Dragon Con looking like the suave bastard you truly are, or some bloke in a white coat, they'd be more inclined to take it as read that you have the authority to provide this without a hitch, right?
It's an unpleasant reality - most humans don't think, they operate off a few key stimuli. It's just as sordid as pimping someone for sex really, isn't it?
Giving them what they want so they unthinkingly hand over their money or their brain to you so you can do what's necessary feels dirty to men of principle, and I know we both have core values on which we won't be shifted, and that sometimes when we're not looking, an insidious sense of superiority starts to bubble up.
And you know what? I think that's OK, so long as you're aware of the fact that making people think differently could be construed as a kind of mind control by those with an interest in the status quo.
And that's *definitely* dirty and disgusting; that the thinkers and leaders who really try to induce change are often silenced or distorted by time and opportunity.
The real question is, I think, how dirty are you willing to get your hands? Are you willing to plunge your hands into the filth and the guts, to learn to sit down and eat the filth and transmute it into something useful?
Are you willing to play the bastards at their own game, and do it better than them? Also, lest anyone feel like Nietzsche-quoting on abysses and monsters here, think about this:
You have taken on the mantle of Fenris, a monster by all the accounts. But who wrote those accounts, and to what end? Loki's son - betrayer of the gods - the devourer of Odin.
Odin the slaughtermaster, the worker of evil, the slayer of Ymir. Maker of worlds from the blood and bones of his own kin. Loki's bloodbrother.
Who is the monster really? What is monstrousness in fact? What is horror, what is disgust? Is it not a reaction, are you not affected by it?
If that's the case, what separates you from those who want their worlds safe and familiar? Not much, except maybe awareness, maybe a realization?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 02:46 am (UTC)If you want others, then look at *their* world with them, see as they see. Put down your own vision and accept theirs for a while. You're asking them to do the same, only *you* are the one taking the risk the first step, not them. You're willing to put aside everything for a while, to be with them, as they are *now*, not how they will be once you've done what it is that you do.
Don't interpret, not at first.
THE SECRET'S EXPLANATION.
1. That which is about to contract has surely been expanded. That which is about to weaken has surely been strengthened. That which is about to fall has surely been raised. That which is about to be despoiled has surely been endowed.
2. This is an explanation of the secret that the tender and the weak conquer the hard and the strong.
3. As the fish should not escape from the deep, so with the country's sharp tools the people should not become acquainted." - Suzuki and Carus, Tao Te Ching, Ch 36
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 05:05 am (UTC)I just disagree that it makes any long-term sense at all.
Even on the scale of feeling good, and living a quiet, "normal" life, the importance of immediate satisfaction via the manipulation and lie would seem far less than that of creating a stable structure to live in, always.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 04:46 am (UTC)This is the problem, because the far more insidious and pervasive mind control is Never This Blatant. As you note, when pointing out the ways to guard yourself against manipulation is considered "being manipulative," what the fuck can you even do?
How dirty can you get, before you're unable to see your initial goals, anymore?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 05:27 am (UTC)But that doesn't mean it Should-- yes, Should-- be that way. That doesn't really mean it Should be any particular way, but the fact that there's such a blockage to even trying what I'm proposing-- Making You The Individual More Capable Of Determining The Best Way To Engage In Self And Social Reflection For Beneficial Growth And Change-- is just... wearisome.
What is so scary about this?
What is so hard?
Why can't people see the opportunity that this presents for making their lives clearer, sharper, easier, more fulfilling, on its face?
We don't just damn sit here. We dig into ourselves, for fuck's sake, and search for a way to make it BETTER.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-29 03:07 am (UTC)Two things:
1. Learn the art of tactical dissimulation and use every trick they use and turn it to your own ends.
2. Do what you do anyway, and accept that quite possibly no-one will ever understand what you're doing, and take joy in doing it anyway because gods damnit, if you're letting others dictate how you feel and work, then you are not doing it right at all.
This leads onto the question of 'How dirty do you get before you lose sight of your goals?'
My answer is that you get dirtier than anyone has ever been by abandoning goals, turning inward and living in the state of being that *spawned* those goals.
You say: Fuck this shit. These goals are hard to achieve, and the difficulty and resistance is wearisome to me, exhausting and soul destroying.
I don't know about you, but I'm not letting people wear me down. It's stupid and inefficient. I have better things to do. The writer's maxim: Kill your darlings.
This applies here. Your dearly held beliefs are as nothing to the world, and the constant pursuit of them will lead to pain. How much are you willing to endure in pursuit of some possible transition into the pleasure of achievement?
I could spend the rest of my existence fighting for equal rights of access for those who use a wheelchair for example, because everyone SHOULD be equal. Except, it won't happen, and you know why?
Because we can't control geography. We can't level the planet to a nice smooth plain. Society may shift, but even society must bow to that which lies outside its walls. Our ancestors knew this.
Instead they utilized their knowledge and skills to construct and re-order the things they could use.
The only thing you can utilize, the only thing you can deal with is *you*. That means you can spend your time working for others, or for you. Which is the most efficient use of energy?
And more to the point, one who has mastered themselves, is recognized as a master on a subconscious level. Beyond human-think, millions of years of evolution conspire to inform others that this one should not be crossed, that it is in their interest to move into your sphere.
Thus, they step into the realm you may alter at will.
When I tell stories round a fire, when I ref/GM those present give their attention to me freely. They surrender their minds to the images I am giving them, see what I want them to feel. And they love it.
They ask me, I don't ask them. They ask me to be me. To use my skills on them, to shape their reality. They do this because for as long as I remember, I have told myself stories, I have taken that which influenced me and incorporated it - made it part of me. I have done so because I took pleasure and ease in evoking these things in myself.
I told the stories anyway, even if I did not have an audience, because they sprang from who and what I am. I learned my skills by pleasing myself, doing as I wished and seeking that which followed from it.
You are proposing, projecting outward, seeking to make an...impression on the world yes?
Have you tried considering what it is exactly that the world *needs from you*? Not what you want to give it, but what it needs and will be hungry for, should you offer it?
Right now, you sound frustrated, saddened - you are not at your best; justifiably so from reading between the lines - so, how can you, we, help you in being at your best?
What can *I* do to help you with this? How can I give you what you need, to be the top of the line, bloody awe-inspiring Damien?
Would you mind answering that, helping me out with it? I'd like it very much.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-29 07:33 pm (UTC)I need to be exposed to people who want to learn, and who want to pass along what they have to teach.
I need to eat food.
I need you to keep telling stories as often as you can, and to tell stories when I ask, if you can.
I need you to keep lighting fires and to keep making light.
I need more conversations, like this, always.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-30 05:14 pm (UTC)If you need to be exposed to people who want to learn, and also pass along their knowledge then might I recommend seeking out places that are 'deprived of learning'. The problem with academia is that there's a glut of learning - it's full of white noise and chasing funding; brains half full of overcooked theory and half baked analysis.
The hungry look on children's faces though? Of showing a craftsperson a smarter, easier way to do what they do - taking what you know, and transposing it across, creating a new synthesis? You know what that can achieve, right?
As for the need for stories, well, I tell em anyway. All you need to do is ask for em. You won't be the first and you won't be the last to do so. Never be afraid to do it. It keeps the worlds spinning and the fires burning, because in the words of Gaiman:
"All fire burns, little baby, you'll learn."
Always has done, always will - for as long as there has been mankind there have been worlds, and for all that time, there have been stories told and voices to tell them. Always fires and light in the dark; always quietly talking of impossible things, secret things. Always stalking nightmares and dreams that are awake and watching us sleep.
Always.
They never went away.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 06:32 am (UTC)Boring, boring, boring.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 03:55 am (UTC)Then come the whispers, when the walls are down.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-25 01:17 pm (UTC)1) i never say anything to you while i am drunk that i wouldnt say to you while i was sober.
2) while i am drunk the range of options for activites is limited.
3) talking is one of the activities i can do while drunk. mostly.
4) so i find that i talk more, and about more things, while i am drunk.
its not that i wouldnt have eventually talked to you about X,Y, or Z while sober, its just that while i'm sober i have other things i might be doing instead. *shrug*
or maybe i'm just making excuses for having a good conversation.
maybe i dont need an excuse but i like to have an alibi.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 03:36 am (UTC)